Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSarah Palin and Mark Halperin's Complaints of 'Liberal Media'
In 2006, Mark Halperin -- then of ABC News, now of Time Magazine -- published a book with Politico's Editor-in-Chief John Harris, and Halperin's primary strategy for selling books was to appear on right-wing talk radio and television and rail against "the liberal media," sychophantically spouting right-wing attacks on his profession. Halperin told radio host Hugh Hewitt that he agreed with Hewitt's complaint that the "liberal media has destroyed the necessity of the left having to debate, having to reach a message across, because you guys have always papered over the weakness of their arguments," and then debased himself before Bill O'Reilly by vowing "to prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances. We're going to try to do better."
Halperin continues to play this self-flagellating role in order to please the Right. Today he published a chart arguing that part of what was driving the scrutiny of Sarah Palin is "anti-Republican liberal media bias," and he then went on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC show this morning to make the same claim:
There are three bad reasons [for the "frenzy" against Palin]. One is the liberal press. I think the McCain campaign is right that people are going after her harder than they would go after a Democratic Vice Presidential nominee.The very notion of the "Liberal Media" is one of the most inane myths in American politics -- something spat out and repeated in the lowest right-wing sewers for so long that it has become conventional wisdom -- but Halperin's frequent vouching for that myth, in his role of "journalist," illustrates all one needs to know about him. The media's contempt for both John Kerry and Al Gore was matched only by their reverence for George Bush's swagger. The first several months of media coverage this year was dominated by Jerimiah Wright, lapel pins, bowling scores, Bittergate and elitism. And it is highly unlikely that there has even been a time in American history when the media was as subservient to Government as they were during the Bush era. It's literally hard to imagine a claim that ought to be more discredited in general than the notion of the "liberal media" and its "anti-Republican bias."
But specifically to attribute the media scrutiny of Sarah Palin to this mythical "anti-Republican bias" is absurd beyond description. Palin is undoubtedly the most mysterious and unknown individual to be inserted into our national political scene in decades, if not longer. The first time her name ever appears in any news accounts, at least according to Nexis, was an April 3, 1996 article in The Anchorage Daily News that reported this:
Alaskans Line Up For a Whiff of IvanaThat was 1996. It was that same year -- in October -- when Palin was elected Mayor of Wasilla. According to The Anchorage Daily News article reporting her victory, "the final tally was 617-413." There are High School Student Council elections with more votes than that. She ran her campaign, and won, based on the precise GOP wedge strategies that John McCain, to this day, pretends to decry. As a Wasilla councilman put it at the time:Sarah Palin, a commercial fisherman from Wasilla, told her husband on Tuesday she was driving to Anchorage to shop at Costco. Instead, she headed straight for Ivana.
And there, at J.C. Penney's cosmetic department, was Ivana, the former Mrs. Donald Trump, sitting at a table next to a photograph of herself. She wore a light-colored pantsuit and pink fingernail polish. Her blonde hair was coiffed in a bouffant French twist."We want to see Ivana," said Palin, who admittedly smells like salmon for a large part of the summer, "because we are so desperate in Alaska for any semblance of glamour and culture."
Ivana Trump, the former Czechoslovakian Olympic skier who found fame and wealth as the wife of the New York tycoon, came to Anchorage Tuesday to push her line of perfume.More than 500 people waited as long as half an hour in J.C. Penney to chat with her and receive an autographed photo.
Palin offers no management qualifications, basing her campaign on the buzzword planks and the political might of the far-right Republicans. She obtained endorsement by the NRA. Why is the Republican Party so interested in local elections? Why is the NRA involved in such a contest? The three council seats up this year also saw challengers running on the basis of the Republican Party platform, using the same tactics.Time today reported the same thing: "While Palin often describes that race as having been a fight against the old boys' club, [then-incumbent Mayor] Stein says she made sure the campaign hinged on issues like gun owners' rights and her opposition to abortion (Stein is pro-choice)."I would never suggest that an individual or organization refrain from participating in any election, but I had hoped this valley and Wasilla could avoid the nationwide tendency that sees such elections become more and more partisan. Bad enough that state decisions are made more often on the basis of party politics and in party caucuses. We don't need that at the local level.
The first thing Palin did after being elected was fire six department heads in the City, including the Police Commissioner and the librarian. As The Anchorage Daily News put it: "the newly elected mayor of Wasilla has asked all of the city's top managers to resign in order to test their loyalty to her administration." It added:
She's also been criticized by the local semiweekly newspaper for a new policy requiring department heads to get the mayor's approval before talking to reporters. An editorial in The Frontiersman labeled it a "gag order."In January of 1997, Palin seemed actually to lie about what she did, as the same paper reported:
Palin said she planned to meet with [Police Chief Irl] Stambaugh and [librarian Mary Ellen] Emmons this afternoon. She also disputed whether they had actually been fired. "There's been no meeting, no actual terminations," she said.Perhaps the most disturbing revelation about Palin yet appeared in the Time article linked above -- that one of the very first things she did after being elected Mayor was pressure the librarian to ban books which she found offensive in some way:Stambaugh's response was to read part of the letter given to him.
"Although I appreciate your service as police chief, I've decided it's time for a change. I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment. . . . ""If that's not a letter of termination, I don't know what is," he said.
Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.Indeed, while reading through the early accounts of Palin's tenure as mayor, the most mystifying aspect was that she not only immediately fired people like the Police Chief and Finance Director -- one could argue that a new Mayor would want loyalists in those positions to carry out her new agenda -- but also the City Librarian. From the January 31, 1997 edition of Anchorage Daily News:
Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin fired the city's police chief and the library director without warning Thursday, accusing them of not fully supporting her efforts to govern. Irl Stambaugh and Mary Ellen Emmons said letters signed by Palin were dropped on their desks Thursday afternoon telling them their jobs were over as of Feb. 13 and that they no longer needed to report to work.Other than banning books which Palin disliked, what possible agenda could a librarian be expected to serve upon pain of firing? Community anger over Palin's attempt to fire the librarian was apparently intense, forcing Palin to reverse her decision. From the The Anchorage Daily News on February 1, 1997:Emmons has been the city's library director for seven years. Stambaugh has headed the police department since it was created in 1993. Before that, he served 22 years with the Anchorage Police Department rising to the rank of captain before retiring.
City librarian Mary Ellen Emmons will stay, but Police Chief Irl Stambaugh is on his own, Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin announced Friday.Thereafter, Palin fired the City Attorney, who was replaced by Ken Jacobus, the counsel for the Alaskan state Republican Party. Between this behavior almost immediately upon becoming Mayor and her subsequent firing of the State Police Commissioner while Governor, Palin has a rather clear pattern of trying to use her power to advance personal grievances and fill government positions with political hacks, cronies, and those who are loyal to her politically -- exactly what has infected so much of the Federal Government over the last eight years. Far worse, shockingly little is known about what she actually thinks and believes, and what little is known suggests some rather extremist and even bizarre leanings, beginning with an attempt to ban books from her local library, even firing the head librarian for refusing to comply.The decision came one day after letters signed by Palin were dropped on Stambaugh's and Emmon's desks, telling them their jobs were over as of Feb. 13.
The mayor told them she appreciated their service but felt it was time for a change. "I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment ..." the letter said.Palin said Friday she now feels Emmons supports her but does not feel the same about Stambaugh.
As to what prompted the change, Palin said she now has Emmons' assurance that she is behind her. She refused to give details about how Stambaugh has not supported her, saying only that "You know in your heart when someone is supportive of you."
And yet here is Mark Halperin, claiming that it is "anti-Republican liberal media bias" (along with "sexism") that explains why, in his words, "Sarah Palin is Being So Very Scrutinized" (even while acknowledging that there are "good reasons" for doing so). Has there ever been an individual on a major party presidential ticket about whom less was known than Sarah Palin? Infinitely more scrutiny is required before it can be said that the media has fulfilled its obligations here, let alone that it has done so excessively due to "anti-Republican" media bias that exists only in Mark Halperin's head.
UPDATE: Speaking of the merger of right-wing talking points and media narratives, the AP's Tom Raum last night "reported" -- falsely -- that "many liberals are belittling the choice, suggesting that as a mother of five children -- including an infant with Down syndrome - she has neither the time nor the experience to become vice president." National Review's Kathleen Parker echoes that claim almost verbtaim today: "Some also have questioned whether Palin, whose son Trig has Down syndrome, can be both a mother and a vice president? These questions aren't coming from the Right -- so often accused of wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen -- but from the Left."
Which "liberals" -- who "on the Left" -- have done any such thing? Neither AP nor Parker bother to identify a single person who has. Here, however, is right-wing icon Dr. Laura Schlesinger:
I am extremely disappointed in the choice of Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate of the Republican Party. . . . I'm stunned -- couldn't the Republican Party find one competent female with adult children to run for Vice President with McCain? I realize his advisors probably didn't want a "mature" woman, as the Democrats keep harping on his age. But really, what kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down Syndrome, and then goes back to the job of Governor within days of the birth?Here, you can email NRO Editor Kathryn Jean Lopez (who repeated and promoted Parker's false claim) and ask Lopez if they intend to correct Parker's erroneous claim. The Right and many of their media allies are simply inventing attacks on Palin, dishonestly attributing them to "liberals," and then gallantly defending her from them.When Mom and Dad both work full-time (no matter how many folks get involved with the children), it becomes a somewhat chaotic situation. Certainly, if a child becomes ill and is rushed to the hospital, and you're on the hotline with both Israel and Iran as nuclear tempers are flaring, where's your attention going to be? Where should your attention be? Well, once you put your hand on the Bible and make that oath, your attention has to be with the government of the United States of America. . . .
Any full-time working wife and mother knows that the family takes the short end of the stick. Marriages and the welfare of children suffer when a stressed-out mother doesn't have time to be a woman, a wife, and a hands-on Mommy.
99 Comments so far
Show All"I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla."
"Govern"? What sort of delusional idiot believes that acting as the part-time mayor of a little town in Alaska involves governing? Washington insiders say the vice-presidency changed Dick Cheney...imagine what that much power would do to this woman.
When I saw the new polling numbers this morning I was in shock. For the first time in my life, I am truly afraid for my country.
AndyUK: I agree...what horrors await?
Blugie: let me count the ways...what do you like?
METAL: Thank you for answering the question as to where media is purportedly liberal. Excellent explanation.
Great points: MY CONSCIENCE & BIOMUSICOLOGIST.
THOMAS MORE: Once again, I have to applaud your politeness, but sometimes neutrality gives the appearance of standing placidly by in the face of abject evil.
Siouxrose.....I'm not neutral, I am just slow to come to a conclusion. Kneejerk judgements are almost always wrong. There was a time when I had to make split second decisions and I do believe thats why I look at everything I can find about something before jumping in if given the time.
I'm not neutral about things that I know for certain or care deeply for...I think you are aware of that by now. But give me a kickstart if you see me being to slow about something.
Suggestions and critiques are always welcome.
Sorry, I still like things about her.....
Try these cures:
Sarah Loves People: http://www.laprogressive.com/
Sarah Loves Animals: http://actionfund.defenders.org/palinvideo
Even the Mickey Mouse Club knew that "beauty is as beauty does".
Joe
Sorry, I think she is very attractive, is that what you mean!
Exactly. That's about all there is to her, isn't it?
Please name them.
"What is the difference between a Hockey Mom and a Pitbull?
You can have a pitbull put down when it viciously attacks you.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
LOL
Joe
Didn't Dan Quayle rail against Murphy Brown having a pre-marital preganacy? Is he a liberal media person?
I don't know how much of all this is true about Sarah Palin, but let's just say 25% is factual - that is way too much. Everyone I have spoken to in the UK, even people with different political views to myself, cannot believe the nomination of Sarah Palin. She is a potential President, a person who has no experience of the wider World. She is a vengeful person - sacking long standing employees for having different views to her own. She wishes to control people, in the way that the Nazis did in 1936, that started with book burning as well. Will she, if elected, make it illegal for same sex couple to live together? Will she change the curriculum, so that only Creationism is taught in schools? She drew a likeness between "Hockey mums and Pitbulls", saying the only difference was "lipstick". Here in the UK, we recognise Pitbulls for the nasty, viscous animals they are, and limit their ownership.
Why are a significant number of people in the US, enthralled by macho, over aggressive posturing and rhetoric? What horrors await the World if McCain and Palin are elected?
Sorry man! At least you get to live in Europe...I don't think we have plans to invade any time soon.
Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40’s), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort to recruit American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda, was headed up by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Philip Graham (publisher of The Washington Post).
About a third of the CIA assets in the U.S are involved in planting misinformation in the press.Idea is not to out lie because that would be obivious..
But to plant stories that put doubt in peoples mind about the truth.
Keeping them guessing about what the truth is so they cannot draw any real conclusions. In the media they call it spin.
And it happens on sites like this too.
Liberal Media in America, (laughing right now)
I feel that these stories get out to give the ILLUSION of a free and open media in America. They are there to please the Americans that are SO SICK of the Bush/Neo GOV that anyone who looks even a little human will win support of the people. Having spent time outside America ( that only a few on CD give me the impression that they have) The real world views of America and its media are very different from what American see. That is why I have no problem and honestly believe America is screwed.
NEOCONS call the media liberal when they tell the truth just remember that people.
If the story was not the truth the paper, TV, book is liable.
The most egregious MYTH: the American MSM media is liberal. Just follow the $$$$$$$ folks.
The American media as an independent free body is none existent
The rest of the world logic goes as follows
When 9/11 accrued the buildings that were destroyed caused a negative ripple effect in the WEST’S BANKING AND INSURANCE WORLD.
I for one my warehouse insurance in the USA and Canada went up. in cost
True or false my brokers blamed the 9/11 destruction
The USA and its Allies destroyed all the assets Building Infrastructure in the Nation of Iraq and our banks and insurance companies never skipped a beat.
Conclusion the western banks had no investments in Iraq, and did not control that countries finances
Would they have gone to war with Iraq if its buildings , infrastructures and financials were in debt to Western Banks?
Suzanne Gentling
Watching Palin's youngest child, an infant, being hauled onto that stage last night, with all the noise, lights and commotion, told me more about her than any article or news report.
The selfishness of this woman was sickening to me.
Blugie: Check her record and Not just the Republican fantasy spin. She is the antithesis of a strong champion of women.
Scratch the surface of the sweet smile last night and her speech was chilling, negative and smug with little substance.
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life
http://www.wilypython.net/Always%20Look%20on%20the%20Bright%20Side%20of%20Life.asp
The article is a keeper.
I must confess, Palin disgusts me. But so does her party. So do the Dems.
I find the American use of the term 'liberal' to be confusing. I'm Canadian.
But I think Glenn Greenwald has done a good job of parsing this rightwing attack on liberal media. Mark Halperin is like the newly hired construction worker who doesn't really have any special skills. They therefore just have him out cleaning up after those workers who do have special skills and more respect and can therefore leave the dirtier work to the new guy. But that's okay. It's normal and it doesn't mean, necessarily, the new guy won't advance.
Except that the job these construction workers are performing is destruction.
I long ago figured out that there's not much honesty in the world. I've followed politics for a while and something that always made me nuts - because I was religious before I was into politics - was the way the Right would call everything, automatically, too leftwing or socialist. Lots of people have talked about that. Chomsky often points out that the branding of enemies as 'communists' or 'radicals' is simply a way for the Right to snag lazy onlookers who don't think critically about the media offerings they consume. I'm just finishing up a second book by John Perkins (CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN and THE SECRET AMERICAN EMPIRE) in which he makes that point often, as he did in CONFESSIONS.
The constant, accusatory tone, on top of the actual corporatocracy activities, is a way to stop people from thinking and force them to just follow. Or go away. It's a Jedi mind trick, that, unfortunately, too many are susceptible too. It's a framing of the debate, whatever debate is happening. 'Is the media too Liberal when it notes that Palin lied about her firing of six department heads in Wasilla when she was mayor?' Hopefully, Which is the intention, folks will get sidetracked on trying to answer that absurd question rather than looking closely at what Palin did. And it's certainly easier for rightwingers to take that approach. They don't have to think either. Of course, They might want to know that embracing darkness is it's own reward.
And then there's the absurdity factor. It reminds me of Freemasons who have a charge, or rule, about how to deal with others. 'Divert the discourse' is the charge. It involves (those o so secretive folks who put their symbols on their licence plates and gravestones and menu/services signs you see when entering various municipalities) talking to others about Masonry, when it's unavoidable, in such a way that the interested and curious person or persons get fed up with the impenetrable or nonsensical mumbo jumbo and decide that it's not all that interesting afterall. I've witnessed it. It involves spouting half truths and some sensible stuff mixed with lies and nonsense. The problem with it is that the more serious about following the charge a brother is, the more of a fool he makes of himself in the process, since the Order's actual mythology 'is' mumbo jumbo (in my view). That isn't to say that Masons can't be trouble.
A resource-rich Right (the Right and the mainstream Left), in power in so many places and for so long, can talk nonsense to us. And they know that. Why work (at dialog and 'give and take' and at proving your arguments) if you don't have to? So we have to endure nonsense like 'Tax cuts for the rich are what poor Americans really need'. They might make the minimal effort to make a message like that a little less blunt, but the message is still there.
Here's another trick they pull. Whatever crap they are doing, they just turn it around and say that the Left (or socialists or communists or radicals) is doing it. It's child's play! It's so easy and profitable to be rightwing! This tendency was explored in an article by Edward S. Herman that I happened on the other day when I was doing some research. Check it out: http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/13819
O yes, This was bouncing around in my head, but somehow I couldn't focus on it. That's what comes from posting after 12 hour shifts and in the middle of the night.
Regarding the accusatory tone; I like it when they accuse you of something that's not bad. It's a good child's trick. "You're a socialist!," is supposed to elicit a negative reaction. The question is, A negative reaction to what? Is being a socialist bad? Or is the question bad? There's nothing wrong with being whatever you want to be, except, it seems, in the land of the free and brave, home to the world's foremost champion of democracy. Being accused of being socialists, or communists or radicals, when it's not from someone who's sincere, is a challenge. Do they want to talk about it? Do they want to listen while you explain what you think is good and bad about being a socialist? Or do the accusers just like throwing wrenches into all discussions with their political opponents and/or any who might like to challenge their politics?
Of course there is nothing wrong with being any of those things. There are some good socialist ideas. Never found any thing in communism or Marxism worth noting myself.
Never turn down a good idea.
The moment they become anti-American is a different story.
The American media as an independent free body is none existent
The rest of the world logic goes as follows
When 9/11 accrued the buildings that were destroyed caused a negative ripple effect in the WEST’S BANKING AND INSURANCE WORLD.
I for one my warehouse insurance in the USA and Canada went up. in cost
True or false my brokers blamed the 9/11 destruction
The USA and its Allies destroyed all the assets Building Infrastructure in the Nation of Iraq and our banks and insurance companies never skipped a beat.
Conclusion the western banks had no investments in Iraq, and did not control that countries finances
Would they have gone to war with Iraq if its buildings , infrastructures and financials were in debt to Western Banks?
The American media as an independent free body is none existent
The rest of the world logic goes as follows
When 9/11 accrued the buildings that were destroyed caused a negative ripple effect in the WEST’S BANKING AND INSURANCE WORLD.
I for one my warehouse insurance in the USA and Canada went up. in cost
True or false my brokers blamed the 9/11 destruction
The USA and its Allies destroyed all the assets Building Infrastructure in the Nation of Iraq and our banks and insurance companies never skipped a beat.
Conclusion the western banks had no investments in Iraq, and did not control that countries finances
Would they have gone to war with Iraq if its buildings , infrastructures and financials were in debt to Western Banks?
Good comment, Arby. But I wouldn't worry too much about the mostly irrelevant Masons, who may have had power once but are now so veiled in historical murkiness and cobwebby silliness as to merit little attention. The Skull & Bones crowd is another matter, being more contemporary and the proving ground of too many in the power elite, business and politics. I with you and all your other points. Chomsky, Perkins, Herman--all important writers for understanding our current fascist impasse from which neither wing of the Business Party will ever release us.
Thanks. I was only using the Masonic reference as an illustration. The same thing you said applies to Masons, in my view. One needn't worry about Masons, specifically. It's what some people, who also happen to be Masons, do that's the concern. Although it's true that Masonry, due to oaths they take that conflict with other oaths that some professions require of their members, has been a problem, notably in England.
Lordy, Lordy, what you recon we gonna do 'bout dis liberal bias in da press?
Dat's jest been da mostest thing on my mind here lately.
KIVALS: Where is the media so liberal on social issues? Do you mean the filthy content of so much television? Certainly I don't see LIBERAL concepts rallied around insofar as education, economics, environmental devastation? Maybe liberal in sit-com content, but NO news programs touch the stuff. Just as the convention used fascist means to silence any visual proof of dissent, MSM news programs show a variety of programs ALL saying the SAME thing. Note the run-up to war, and all the generals, all the imposters acting like neutral experts when they were PAID to give "approved of" opinions. Where is the media liberal??????
Excellent points: SPACE CADET & W C DEVINS.
VOX: Please don't check out yet! WE love your sense of humor and righteous outrage at the idiocies and immoralities of our times!
THOMAS MORE: You pose yourself as the quintessential polite middle man. But those who countenance what no sane or civil society SHOULD countenance are neither! What is so "middle class normal" about an authoritarian who doesn't manage her own family with any commitment to BEING there? A girl of 17 pregnant is crying out for help, love and attention! This is a COLD blooded female, ambition comes first, family is window dressing. It's ALL P.R. The husband follows behind her like an obedient dog. And I agree with others, the maternal-infant bond in a woman with a REAL heart is as cohesive as magnetism. To push that baby aside to do "more important things" is against all the down-home Republican/Christian fundamentalist values. But the hypocrits will toss that aside because America is really about sport and teams, and God-darn it, Sarah is on THEIR team. Don't cha know? It's all BRAND names.
Siouxrose, I don't pose myself as anything. I am polite. I detest rudness. Its usually practiced by immature punks or uncaring adults. I hate vile and filthy language because it is usually indulged in by people that have nothing to say or are still adolescent and think it makes them seem more grown up. I hate people that talk about war that know nothing about war. I guess you say middle, because I always try to see both sides of a question because I know one side is not always right.
you are missing my point. P.R. or not, perception counts. I am trying to say that by attacking the "brand" there is a large risk of backlash, of helping them. There is already a real feeling that Obama is elitist and the remarks that he made in San Francisco are not forgotten. The people that we need to win this election are those people. Forget any of the stuff about anyone else. Our choice is Obama or McCain. And I have a developing fear that liberals and progressives may be about to play right into their hands with this stuff. I don't know how else to say it or make my point clearer. Thats a failing I've got.
Its like the speech by McCain tonight. Do you think the interruption by the Code Pink ladies helped us? I assure you it did not. It hurt.
Let me second that Vox, hang around. You two need to keep me on the straight and narrow!
The corporate pot calling the corporate kettle black. If there wasn't a substantial portion of the population that believed this tripe, I would bust out laughing at the thought.
To any of the above that approve of base personal attacks, vile language, vile accusations, some of the things said here were intolerant, more suited to a speech by Dick Cheney. Liberals are better than that.
peacegurl September 4th, 2008 6:45 pm
progressiveparty September 4th, 2008 3:57 pm
mairs September 4th, 2008 4:23 pm
and others were able to make valid points without that kind of trash talking, letsd try to keep it civil.
Who are you? The etiquette police?
Nope, just a decent human being I hope that prefers vile, filthy language kept to a minimum if possible. It offends adults.
Thomas More: you are a very polite poster. Most of the time people use expletives because they have a weak vocabulary and this does not make them bad people just undereducated.
Thanks. Both you and Siouxrose have been very nice to say that.
It certainly wouldn't be offensive to suggest that other adults are infantile simply because they use certain words, would it? You are so superior and decent! Congratulations!
I thank you for congratulating me on not being a potty mouth. Whart would you say courseness indicates?
Courseness indicates frustration and possibly anger. People have a right to angry about Dick Cheney and Dubya, as you have mentioned, so don't they also have a right to be angry about those who lie and abuse power to support Dick Cheney and Dubya?
We underestimate the power of superstition and jingoism.
Oakknot
I would agree with everyone who decries the sexist/misogynist tripe; let this rancor regarding the right-wing hack job be about what has been committed, official behaviors, and policies. There is more than enough in those instances to prove her unsuitability for the VP job.
"it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" Zapata
I thought she was divisive,sarcastic and condescending in her speech; which I forced myself to watch.
If you check her record based on fact you see that she is not the maverick crusader that she is being touted to be.Her beliefs are terrifying (from creationism to banning books to teen abstinence)and she is a scary prospect to be a "heartbeat away" from the presidency.The personal attacks and nasty remarks should stop and we should focus on her actual record and who she really is.
I'm a working woman but she does not resonate with me as a woman or a mother of daughters.I am not impressed but I am fearful.
Sarah Palin fits the classic authoritarian profile that describes the GOP since, at least, Tom Delay. She's perfect for them. She has all the qualifications that they require.
I agree with Kane Jeeves, for the Right, the election is not about issues, it is about an metaphorical image. It should be obvious to us now that GWB, an elite, northeastern ivy-league blueblood, was transformed into a down-home, "straight-shootin' cow-poke" from Texas so as to appeal to their base. Image without substance, yes, but it sure worked!!! So trying to debate the Right on issues is a waste of time. George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist, has written about this. Unfortunately, his research doesn't get the attention it deserves from Progressives.
Yes! Great word for her: authoritarian. Sarah Palin is an authoritarian pitbull with lipstick.
For Hollow Man and Shallow Woman:
A person who opposes abortions might be all right so long as she opposes miscarriages, too, and speaks out against the American blowing up of Afghan wedding parties, since if the bride and groom are dead, it seems unlikely they will have children.
A person who insists that life begins at conception, however, is a complete twit. Weren't the sperm cells life? How about the ovum? How about the parents and their ancestors?
Any rational person should be able to understand that life is a cycle (and I don't mean a bike).
*
Not Proud on Tuesday:
The twit at the NRC (National Republican Convention) who said there had never been a moment in his life when he wasn't proud to be an American was a tranquil sheeple when our soldiers blew up four wedding parties in Afghanistan. Anyone that uncritical has no place in politics. We might be better off shooting such people in a rocket to the Andromeda Galaxy rather than electing them to anything.
Yup! Just what the big, real world needs -- a reactive, small world -- "God, Guts and Guns" cheerleader! Ugggh!
Crazy wingnut Peggy Noonan on the McCain campaign after the Palin, er, choice: "It's over."
And that's the plan, baby - the neo-criminals are taking four years off to regroup, and Palin is the poison pill.
Widhalm, why is that when her past questionable behavior in office is brought up, someone always says you are attacking a 1.Mother of five, 2. Good Christian woman, 3. Hard worker etc. If you can't stick to the issues, then why bother replying? So you want her to be able to hide behind symbolic untouchable generalized values that have to do with her gender, religion, childbearing status, in response to others wanting to address real, actual behaviors of hers that indicate she is not suitable for higher office. It's a transparent technique for moving the debate to, why are you attacking a brave mother, instead of the real debate which is questioning her decision making abilities and motives.
Widhalm19 writes:
"What in the world do Liberals think they are gaining by attacking a small-town, Christian mother of five children who fought corruption within her own political party and was duly elected governor of Alaska? On this website, I have seen Sarah Palin described as a "whore", "bitch", "MILF" (meaning, Mother I Would Like To F***), "Idiot", etc. etc. "
Where to start with this stunning level of ignorance?
1. This forum has no such references. If so, please show them to us. I haven't encountered them elsewhere either.
2. Fought corruption within her own party? Why was she Ted Steven's go-to person in Alaska? He spent TONS of money in advertising to ensure her path to the governorship of Alaska. Ted Stevens--you know, the guy indicted for corruption? Please explain how Palin fought corruption in her own party.
3. Why did this apparent God-fearing woman fire people not pledging loyalty to her? Man, that's just plain wrong, not to mention bizarre.
I think you are WAY OFF BASE in your post, and believe it to be an effort to establish a false defense of your damsel in distress. What a lowlife you are! Above board dialogue is apparently beyond your reach, and you bring your filthy Republican double-speak to this forum. Shame on you! What a jerk.
While I agree that reporters and pundits should be laying out truthful accurate information about Sarah Palin - her record, her beliefs, her life story - I also believe it is a major major error for reporters, pundits and those of us on the blogosphere to use sexist/misogynistic language in our efforts to persuade people that her ideas are not good for america. I felt for all the legitimate criticisms of Hillary Clinton, what actually made me more sympathetic towards her were precisely the sexist attacks on her.
I disagree with Sarah Palin on just about all the issues. I did agree with her about Barack Obama's lack of leadership - the fact that he hasn't sponsored any legislation as a U.S. senator or championed any causes as a U.S. senator is just one of many things that trouble me about his candidacy.
Just an aside: Palin's daughter had me laughing so hard last night - the spitting in her hand before she prettified her baby brother, the fingers in the eyes, and the imperial Queen Elizabeth wave up on the podium!
The Rapture Pair
Vote for the rapture pair
It’s Johnny the saint
and a daughter named after
the daughter of Abraham
who doesn’t pale for prophecy
So is it Johnny the saint
or the grounded angel
not a songbird for the faint of heart
or the devil prophecy of the chosen ist
Das Ich ....Ich bin Du bist
(The Id... I am You are)
ein geriatric terrorist
ein stein short of a full can
to tally the sheep of empire
or to sing the songs of a songbird
the songs of rapture and singed jungle pain
in the jungle that
Johnny thinks we should have reigned
Vote for the rapture pair
for Johnny the maverick saint
and que sarah sarah Sarah
Palin wouldn't have been chosen if she hadn't proven already to be a staunch supporter of the corporate dismemberment of democracy. At first I didn't mind the inexperience, but her lack of a humane ideology and her pandering to the Republicans show that she is a Republican sycophant to the core.
Funny that when 90% of our media is owned by seven corporations, Neo-Cons still cling to the BS that it is a 'Liberal Media Bias'. Why in the world would corporate America want a liberal (i.e. anti-corporate) media? In fact to any outsider (non-American), the 'rightness' of our media is appalling. Liberal issues such as an end to the military, prison and medical industrial complexes, are never debated in our so-called liberal media. In fact it is incredible that so many Americans actually believe this crap!!!
The Republicans were all over the John Edwards story when exposed by the National Enquirer, but now cry foul when the same tabloid starts revealing strange unexplained circumstances surrounding Sara Palin with regards to which child is really hers and which is her abstinant-only daughter's, or her alleged affair with her husbands business partner. As usual, the longer this goes, the more interesting it will become. Time to get out the popcorn.
We have had 8 years of Loyal Bushies ans seen the destructuion they have wrought.....now we are supposed to swallow "Loyal Palies"?
GIVE ME A BREAK!
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Palin and her husband represent the Republican penchant for caring about unborn children and then walking away from them when they are born, even if they are their own. Her decision to run for VP would be understandable if her husband were to be the one staying home and caring for the very intensive needs of a disabled infant, to say nothing of the other underage kids, including the pregnant seventeen-year-old. But I haven't heard Mr. Palin making that offer. Apparently Palin said that child care wasn't a problem in her family because the older kids were such good babysitters. We can see how that worked out with her eldest daughter. I suppose they plan to turn all the kids over to a stranger to raise. But as a mother myself, I don't understand how a parent could do that to a disabled infant unless forced to do so by poverty.
"Apparently Palin said that child care wasn't a problem in her family because the older kids were such good babysitters."
Did you notice last night when the cameras went to the second youngest kid (who knows who mothered or fathered this one) and the girl spit on or licked her hand and wiped the baby's head with it? Now that's what I call a good baby sitter!
Reminded me of when wolfywitz licked his comb before giving an interview about 9-11.
Q: "what kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down Syndrome, and then goes back to the job of Governor within days of the birth? " said Laura Shitslinger..
A: One who didnt actually give birth to the baby?
nice try Grandma
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
I dispute Greenwald's claim that the Republicans have no basis on which to charge the corporate media with "liberal bias." The corporate media IS liberal on the social issues, conservative on the economic issues, and pro-Israel and pro-MIC on the foreign policy issues. It is the negligence of the left in not making these distinctions that allows the right to continue to make its claims of bias and for millions of Americans to believe such claims.
On a related issue, I doubt the corporate media would be this worked up about Ms. Palin's shortcomings and problems if she were not so conservative on the social issues, as she certainly falls in line on the other issues. So maybe Obama caught a break when McCain impulsively chose the Christian extremist.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
The corporate media used to be truly liberal on social issues--before the 1980s. Now it is merely superficially sympathetic to some liberal perspectives on social issues (for the sake of maintaining its dumbed-down audience which has been slowly dwindling for decades nonetheless), but either disdains or is aloof from any actual moves to advance those liberal concepts with government funding or programs. On many topics like education they cut both ways: Sometimes seeming to support vouchers, home schooling and private education and sometimes seeming to support programmatic reform for public education--if it is accomplished magically without any increase in taxpayer funding.
Where the corporate media is most liberal in the non-political but general sense of "anything goes" is in its selling of immorality, gratuitous violence, crassly marketed sex and unquestioning materialism in the form of entertainment programming of various sorts--especially what passes for movies these days. Most of this junk is now almost entirely derivative and devoid of originality to boot. Mussolini described the merging of the corporate and the political, but Amurka adds a Madison Avenue advertising sheen--loaded with scientifically researched visual and auditory psychological cues--to it that has remade fascism into ultra-conservatism devoid of conscience sweetened with superficial liberal sensuality.
Excellent post! And a perfect picture of the negligence of the left in not making these distinctions. Perfect.
So Thomas More....I'm curious. Which books would you be the first to ban?
I assume you are joking.
In what forum should the left to make these distinctions? The media is 90% center-right. The radio is far right. Most evening news are right of center. Where besides here can we proclaim the falsehoods?
The so-called liberal media should air that "banning books" story far and wide if it is truly a "liberal" media. Otherwise, let's put that myth to bed.
"The media is 90% center-right"
I would suggest that the medias treatment of Obama from the start would tell you that is incorrect. Of course the journalists are mostly liberal, now you may be right about the ownership though.
The media's treatment of Obama from the beginning...I heard all about Obama's minister saying horrible things (never in full context), but never heard the media treat John McCain like a second class minority.
You are dead wrong on this one. You believe the myths about the liberal media, don't you? Underneath it all, I have a hunch that you are not what you pretend to be on this site.
Commondreamers,
Goodness, another essay about Sarah Palin, this time written by Glen Greenwald. Do liberals and progressives not realize that more slander, innuendo and fear-ridden angst about Sarah Palin will only serve to strengthen her appeal to many everyday, working-class people of the United States?
What in the world do Liberals think they are gaining by attacking a small-town, Christian mother of five children who fought corruption within her own political party and was duly elected governor of Alaska? On this website, I have seen Sarah Palin described as a "whore", "bitch", "MILF" (meaning, Mother I Would Like To F***), "Idiot", etc. etc.
Here's something to ponder Progressives ... most voters don't want to be told how utterly stupid they are for holding core values and beliefs that differ from your own.
>>Do liberals and progressives not realize that more slander, innuendo and fear-ridden angst about Sarah Palin will only serve to strengthen her appeal to many everyday, working-class people of the United States?
Slander is a legal term, easily definable. Be specific, and bear in mind that Glen Greenwald is a lawyer, so I'm certain he knows what constitutes "slander."
So, tell me, Widhalm19.....exactly what is slanderous here? Please be precise.
>>What in the world do Liberals think they are gaining by attacking a small-town, Christian mother of five children who fought corruption within her own political party and was duly elected governor of Alaska?
Oh, here we go again.
So the implication lurking beneath your commentary is that Christian = good. Well, sorry, but I'm a rational atheist, and I see nothing in such irrational "beliefs" that are good. In fact, and far to the contrary, history certainly grooves me right.
So when I see statements such as these:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war
"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."
"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
"...she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets."
Well, I must ask you, what separates Sarah Palin from the Taliban other than it's a different mythology?
Excuse me, but the 6th commandment says "thou shalt not kill." Alas, I don't recall reading anything in the bible about oil pipelines, but the point here is this.
If you are going to wear your Christianity on your shirtsleeve, and claim things such as "God told me to invade Iraq."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1006-09.htm
Or it's "God's will" to open up the North Slope to drilling, then you open yourself up to not only questioning your Christianity, but your sanity (think Son of Sam). So once Palin opened up this can of worms, then it's only fair to question her utter nonsensical and outright insane viewpoints.
Imagine if Sara Palin said that an invisible pink unicorn told her to "create jobs by drilling on the North Slope", or that an invisible purple dragon told her that it was the "purple dragons' plan" to do the "purple dragon's work" and "liberate" Iraq from tyranny.
She'd be committed to a mental asylum in a nanosecond.
"Liberal" or conservative, it is one's duty to question such utter nonsense.
You say "most voters don't want to be told how utterly stupid they are for holding core values and beliefs that differ from your own."
It's not about me. I don't have "beliefs." I operate on facts, evidence and reality, not pathetic mythology. If you want to believe in purple dragons, or pink unicorns, or the earth is flat, then fine, show me some evidence. And particularly where the leadership of this nation is concerned, if you refuse to accept hard evidence that contradicts you "beliefs" then you shouldn't be an office holder. You should be in an asylum or perhaps sent back to second grade to learn a little about science, math and history. And I'll be the first to call you stupid for dismissing science and reality to live under a senseless mythology created by people who thought that the sun revolved around the earth and that the world was flat.
Now....it's your turn to ponder.
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!
Amen. Haha. Actually I am Jewish, and I share your anger at the fact that just because someone claims they are Christian, they are inherently good. Or that Christians have a monopoly on knowing what God's will and such crap is.
Funny but most American voters are against the stupid Iraq "War" Occupation that McCain and Palin falsely present as a winnable situation.
Most American voters are pissed about gas prices that Palin pledges to keep high by keeping the military-industrial complex in total control. Drill baby drill. She is all about oil: really big oil. That is where her bread gets its butter.
She is a religious zealot and that is not scary in its own right, but it is scary because it shows how she could rationalize an end-of-the-world struggle in the valley of Armageddon starting tjhrough Tehran.
The fact that she fired the librarian over books with "core values and beliefs that differ from her own", says that she is unfit to lead in a true democracy.
"What in the world do Liberals think they are gaining by attacking a small-town, Christian mother of five children who fought corruption within her own political party and was duly elected governor of Alaska?"
Seems to me she's rather corrupt herself, by abusing the power of her first office to serve her own personal agenda.
"Here's something to ponder Progressives ... most voters don't want to be told how utterly stupid they are for holding core values and beliefs that differ from your own."
The truth may hurt them, but I've never believed in lying to people just to be nice.
As for the name-calling, I'm not down with that, but the fact that she's just another corrupt Republican should be enough of an insult.
I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that Palin reformed the government in Alaska. She saved it from itself in some ways, by doing the minimum necessary to keep it in power after it proved itself thoroughly corrupt: six indictments and three convictions among Republican state legislators, an indictment of a US Senator, expected indictment on corruption charges of Congressman Don Young; widely anticipated indictment of Senator Stevens' son Ben Stevens on corruption charges stemming from his time as President of the State Senate. The republican party in Alaska stinks to high heaven; if they were ever going to survive the next election, somebody had to spray on a little deodorant. It was the FBI that took the initiative in reforming the state government, not Sarah Palin.
Where are these charges of sexism stemming from?
They sound manufactured to me--like a justification to shield the politician from all charges and legitimate criticism regarding hypocrisy, lack of ethics, unsound judgement, support of damgerous Bush league policy, militarism, etc. It is unbelievable how YET AGAIN, people, responding with sheep-like predictability, are suckered by the latest passing pop culture craze and jump on the patriotic feel-good flag-waving bandwagon--while their standard of living erodes further.
Give me a break with the sanctimonous lecturing and defense of the latest johnny-come-lately slick PR political...celebrity for the criminal Right.
If she didn't want the heat she should have stayed out of the fire. This lightweight is in no way qualified to be a heartbeat away from the leadership of the semi-free world. She does not believe in science, education, choice, or the environment. Her sex-education fantasies don't even work in her own house. Any working person who aligns themselves with the Republicans whose policies are literally killing them off IS stupid and deserves whatever they get, GWB being the last great example. Unfortunately, I do not deserve the idiots that these stupid people keep electing, and I have no qualms in telling them so. I'm wagering Palin's myriad flaws, even to Republican eyes, cause her to be replaced in two weeks.
Problem is WE SUFFER AS WELL on account of their blind worship of the latest product pitched with buzzwords and poll-tested populist rhetoric. They say, don't call us stupid, but I say, never underestimate the stupidity of the American people who voted in Bush not once, but TWICE, and believe the revisionist history that Reagan was some king-like figure of historical legend. Stupid is as stupid does--and that is just the dumbed-down state they want you to remain in. sucker.
Dr Laura says: "Well, once you put your hand on the Bible and make that oath, your attention has to be with the government of the United States of America." . . .
The exception to this is George W. Bush who spent a total of two years on vacation while the country went down the tubes.
No Doubt the people who really control the United States government will relish the thought of someone like Palin in the White House; another person taking the oath who is easy to manipulate and unconcerned with the welfare of citizens, unless they are their "base".
I'm glad I live in a community where the library has a Banned Book week, where all the books previously banned by fanatics are prominently displayed. However whenever the Repugs put someone up against our Democrat Congressman who has served for many years, it's always a football hero who has served time in the armed forces - with no political or administrative experience - thank the gods he always looses - maybe they will try a beauty queen next time.
I would like to know which books she wanted banned too.
If the media is so liberal why isn't the banned books story in the headlines?
Revenge Girl reports:
I'm glad I live in a community where the library has a Banned Book week, where all the books previously banned by fanatics are prominently displayed.
**************
What a great idea! Where do you live? I want to write the librarian in charge to find out more particulars and thanks in advance for sharing this interesting news.
Poet
I live in a liberal college town in the great state of Oregon that has a very diverse community of liberals, hippies, lesbians, witches, Trustafarians and new-agers..and a fair share of yuppies and evangelical christians. I made the decision to move here the day after the first gulf war, when the only two cities that had demonstrations against that war were Seattle and San Francisco, so I moved about half way in between. We had a wonderful Senator named Wayne Morse at one time and there is a statue of him on the courthouse steps that hippies add a joint to at the Saturday Market. We used to be the Hotbed of Anarchism until the crackdown of 2000, and I'm still holding out for the revolution. It's a great place to live if you despise Repugs. They are here but you never have to hang out with them unless you want to. The town was founded by Eugene Skinner. It has a great library, with a statue of Eugene out front. We also have a bronze statue of Ken Kesey!
Sounds awesome, what college? I might check it out for grad school next year :-)
So is the town Eugene, Oregon or some other place in Oregon whose founderr happened to be named Eugene?
Poet
Hey!
I knew someone named Poet would be smart enough to figure it out!
I'm just a paranoid crazy cat lady and like to be cryptic.
(We have lots of those here too by the way).
Banning books - part of Palin's legacy of "executive decisions" which the desperate Republicans and their pundits are trying to claim makes her past more relevant to public office than Obama's. It would be more relevant if she was running for Minister of Propaganda, which I guess Cheney has made the job of Vice President of the USA.
This article is exactly why I worry that the Dems (or Greens for that matter) will lose in November. Glen, like every Dem and Dem pundit I've heard, is debating issues, in this case whether or not the media has a liberal bias. IT DOESN'T MATTER! This election isn't a debate match about issues. It's a boxing match about personalities. And the "audience" isn't some group of college kids reflecting on the merit of the arguments. It's a group of wrestlemania fans who could care less about issues. Times are tough and they want blood! The Repubs know this and package their product to their market so-to-speak. I really really wish the election was a debate match. Maybe someday it will be. But not this year. Dems need to realize what they're really up against and fight fire with fire.
"many liberals are belittling the choice, suggesting that as a mother of five children -- including an infant with Down syndrome - she has neither the time nor the experience to become vice president." I heard one caller on C-SPAN yesterday morning make this statement. But we know how the right takes on comment and turns it into dozens, or hundreds, or the whole liberal party.
I know this may ruffle a few feathers, but I like her. Don't we need to support strong women who excel at what they do? She certainly does. She took on the corrupt Republican machine in Alaska and was victorious.
We need to be careful here not to give the chance of someone labeling you as "speaking with forked tongue.
Would you rather have had Romney or Rudy? Count your blessings.
I could be wrong, but she sounds like a brainless, posturing, gun happy, autocratic book burning witch to me. But let's say she is at least good at that, and give her credit for being a "strong woman." Can't we just give her a medal or send money or something? Do we have to show our support by making her Commander in Chief of the world's mightiest nuclear arsenal? Would America actually be dumb enough to elect McCain/Palin because they have a soft spot for plucky little soccer moms? Oh God let me die soon.
"I could be wrong,..."
No you couldn't. This lackluster person is unfit for higher office, just like her brain-dead running mate.