The left’s obsession with Sarah Palin
Generally, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but in this case, there’s another agenda afoot. On the same day Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue: An America Life goes on sale, the editors of the left-leaning The Nation are releasing Going Rouge: An American Nightmare. But this book with a similar cover and name to Palin’s already-bestseller isn’t a parody; it’s a collection of essays designed to provide an alternate telling of Palin’s life story.
The publisher of the anti-Palin book points out on its website: “Palin has become one thing: an American obsession that just won’t go away.” And thanks to overreactions like this from the left, she’s likely to remain in the spotlight for a long, long time. (Sort of like Obama and his obsessing over Fox News.)
And speaking of “Going Rouge,” another book with that title is coming out Nov. 17, and in this case it is a parody of sorts: a “Coloring & Activity Book,” complete with, you guessed it, a page where you can color in lipstick on pigs. OK, now, try to stay within the lines!














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top116 Comments to “The left’s obsession with Sarah Palin”
The left’s obsession with Sarah Palin?
Sure!
Report comment to moderator
The manners in which a person is criticized and attacked often says more about the attackers than it does about the person being criticized.
Report comment to moderator
Palin’s vulgar self-entitlement and excess are widely excused by her vulgar and self-entitled supporters. She’s a horrible person who does and says horrible things, she’s proud of her ignorance, and her sentences defy diagramming.
The librarian scandal was enough for me to dismiss her as a charlatan. I hope her kids escape her lazy, sleazy version of parenting.
Report comment to moderator
For the record: though I supported her candidacy for vice-president, and I generally agree with her general political philosophy, I am not comfortable that Ms. Palin is qualified to run for President in 2012. (She is about as qualified for the job as Mr. Obama, I would argue.)
Having said that, the left’s attacks on Ms. Palin do seem to focus more on her — as a person, and her family, and her motherhood, etc. — and little or not at all on her political and philosophical positions.
To echo Fisherman (post #2), this says more about the left than about Ms. Palin. An objective observer would ask the left: why are you so afraid of confronting her on the merits? Is it because that is a battle you fear you’ll lose?
Report comment to moderator
Her political positions are preposterous: abstinence-only sex ed in public schools, which causes a lot more problems than it solves, censoring librarians, which makes people who use libraries angry, faking distate for pork-barrel projects while taking the money for them: she’s hideous. It says nothing about the Left other than their ability to point out the hypocrisy of the Right.
Report comment to moderator
Well, T1, I’m not going to get into a nitpicking battle with you; some of your points have merit, some not.
I will only say this: I check out the various polling websites on a regular basis, and the evidence appears to indicate that Ms. Palin’s overall philosophical positions resonate with more Americans than yours.
Report comment to moderator
fisherman post 2,
indeed I have noted this about Palin’s criticsims of others.
A review of these criticisms would, as you suggest, say much about Sarah Palin.
Report comment to moderator
Left’s obsession??? When WMB provides 24/7 coverage of every burble and wink?
Gratitude, perhaps.
Report comment to moderator
Except for Fisherman, it seems the only posters here are those obsessed with Sarah Palin.
Report comment to moderator
Women and minorities who are outspoken conservatives are subjected to far more mindless abuse and hate from the left than are white males, by and large. However, white males who are unusually effective communicators do get a lot of slime thrown at them too by liberals–and most of it is just made up out of whole cloth.
Report comment to moderator
One reason the left is so threatened by women and minority conservatives is that they (the leftists) traffic so much in identity politics, rather than in ideas and in intellectual exchange and honest discourse (at least compared to the right). They have marked out a political “plantation” for minorities and women in their terms and they get very upset when women or minorities get off that ‘plantation’ or want to rise above it, intellectually. Liberals also realize there is a large contingency of Americans who vote their feelings and they normally get most of those voters. Palin may take some of those.
I’m just reflecting. Whatever the reasons, it is clear that the left is VERY threatened by Palin.
Report comment to moderator
11. You sound pretty right on to me. Their basic attitude towards woman is “Here’s your abortions, now shut up.”
Report comment to moderator
#11 Right on target, the left attacks what they fear! They fear a strong independant women that is NOT in their ranks.
Report comment to moderator
Personally not a fan of Sarah Palin, but I can’t help but notice that none of the slobbering lefties who’ve commented here have bothered to address the “Going Rouge” book, which is quite a creepy, stalkerish kind of stunt to pull, if you ask me.
Report comment to moderator
Dad Dog speaks for me. They havent at all zinged her for any bill she signed into law. I think SP is a convenient punching bag. Married women with big families who enjoy a comfortable suburban life are the objects of intense lefty hatred.
She adores her husband and puts her kids first? Yuck! Drives a minivan to take the kids to all their activities? Carbon foot print! Attends a conservative denomination church? Espouses proLife views?
All that makes the seculibidiots throw up.
Report comment to moderator
You can tell who is threatening to liberals by whom they attack most viciously. I think Fisherman was going for some kind of record for density of substance-free ad hominem attacks in as few words as possible: “vulgar,” “horrible,” “ignorant,” “charlatan”, “lazy,” and “sleazy” all within the space of a couple sentences. Gee, I’m really convinced by that. I guess Palin must really be bad if a super-intellect like Fisherman can string together so many hate-filled words.
Report comment to moderator
For all y’all who wonder why World Mag has so many blogs about Palin? It’s because it’s amusing.
Wanna see the left go nuts? Just throw a thread out there about Palin.
Red meat! Wooo! Snap! Snarl! Growl.. slobber!
Someone should write a sequel to Bernie Goldberg’s book A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.
It’ll be about Palin; A Slobbering Hate Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Sleezy attacks on Sarah Palin by the Leftists and the Mainstream Media.
Report comment to moderator
And lest anyone think Palin lacks substance as compared to, say, Obama: recall that she took on the old-boy network in Alaska and won, whereas Obama is little more than a Chicago politician who never even so much as criticized the Daly machine.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy,
I think you got it wrong. Thomas1 is attacking Palin. Fisherman didn’t even mention her name….
Report comment to moderator
Sarah should go easy on the rouge.
http://users.resist.ca/~kirstena/pagechemicalcoolness.html
Report comment to moderator
My bad, I meant Thomas1. Apologies to Fisherman, and thanks to MIM for pointing this out.
Report comment to moderator
Wanna see the left go nuts? Just throw a thread out there about Palin.
Red meat! Wooo! Snap! Snarl! Growl.. slobber!
Wanna see the right go nuts? Throw out a thread about gays, ACORN or the media.
Come on, right and left both have their triggers, and all the posts that suggest only those on the left have such reactions as just boneheaded.
But really, the only reason the left still cares about Palin is because she’s still out there in the public eye. As long as she remains a political force, we have every right and reason to continue to respond to her ideas.
Report comment to moderator
#22 SteveG
Are you sticking up for ACORN?
Please respond to her ideas, though.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Respond to her ideas, fine. But what does that mean?
If I attack Obama for being a racist, Muslim, and Communist, am I responding to his ideas?
If the left responds with drivel like posts 3 and 5, they aren’t responding to her ideas.
I don’t know if the book’s contents will respond to her ideas, but the title and cover don’t lend much hope. It doesn’t seem to suggest a rebuttal of her ideas, but rather a mockery of her personally. Like DavidL said, “quite a creepy, stalkerish kind of stunt to pull, if you ask me.”
Report comment to moderator
chas post 9,
nonsense!
I am obsessed by those obsessed with Sarah Palin.
Consider WMB: two discussion on Sarah Palin in about as many days!
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 10/11,
you point is so clearly demonstrated by Hillary Clinton who ran a very credible campaign for the presidency (as opposed to being selected for the vice presidency) and is performing as a credible job as Secretary of State.
Sure Joel, sure!
Report comment to moderator
The McCain campaign was apparently abandoned by the social conservatives going into the convention. When McCain’s team floated McCain’s suggested vice-presidential candidates, the social conservatvie right threatened to have a major floor fight.
Viola’, appoint Sarah Palin as vice-presidential candidate and the social conservatives started swooning in the streets (consider comments made by outlaw).
The social conservative right has had a “thing” for Sarah Palin at least ever since the 2008 Republican convention, and we can see it continue to this day.
And if you look, except for my response to fisherman, my focus is as I noted, on those who are obsessed with Sarah Palin, not Sarah Palin herself who, I suggest, is increasingly becoming a cipher on the Republican stage.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G. said, “…we have every right and reason to continue to respond to her ideas.”
Which is precisely what none of the liberals on this thread have done.
Not to mention, again, saying word one about the parody book the Left is planning to release on exactly the same day as Palin’s. It bears repeating: it sounds like something a jilted and obsessed girlfriend would do to her ex-boyfriend. Creepy.
Report comment to moderator
Again, I’m no fan of Sarah Palin, but I love watching the liberals here respond to her. It’s kind of like a psychological experiment being performed right before your eyes. It’s odd, too, because as a conservative I can’t imagine wasting my time posting comments every day on a blog that presents and supports all the ideas I reject. Yet this what the liberals here do, and I admit I find quite intriguing.
Report comment to moderator
Good one KBELLS #12
Report comment to moderator
DAVID L. #29
I agree.
Sometimes I feel like someone in the city found out I’m a Christian so they came to my house to call me names. They don’t know me it’s just that I have a label.
Report comment to moderator
Why would someone spend so much time hating someone?
They certainly hate Sarah. They don’t even know her.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
You are right, telling children not to have sex doesn’t work–they are just going to have sex anyway.
And why tell them not to drive fast, talk on the phone while driving, don’t cross the street without looking both ways, don’t touch that burner you’ll get burned, don’t go in that pool you’ll drown. I don’t think we should tell any children NOT to do anything because they will do it anyway. Isn’t that how we got such great schools–kids doing what they want.
I’ve always thought to myself when teens are in the heat of the moment they will stop and say, “stop! my counselor says when we get to this point we are to stop and use that little present she gave me, it will keep me from getting pregnant.” Yeah, and Iran is planning a birthday party for America and you are invited.
Report comment to moderator
I doubt that Sarah Palin is at all troubled by the childish actions of our resident Palin slimers ( and it seems as though we have added one). Like any parent, she has dealt with pouty kids before. It takes a pack of hyenas to bring down a stately person, and then only if they are wounded. Which she is not.
Report comment to moderator
Sarah Palin’s only fault is that she tried to take on Obama, the community organizer. She told the truth about him.
The press loved her at first until Obama told them she was on too many front covers and getting too much good press. Then the attacks began and haven’t let up.
I think the only reason Oprah is having her on is so she can delay Palin’s appearance on any other show. She is even advertising that Palin is going on her show first in the world (cover all the bases Oprah–clever). By now Palin should have been on many other shows. Unless…they were told by Obama’s admin. that he would consider it a favor if they ignored her. Obama is very cool about his calculations–just like a psycho.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G – “But really, the only reason the left still cares about Palin is because she’s still out there in the public eye. As long as she remains a political force, we have every right and reason to continue to respond to her ideas.”
Sarah Palin is not running for anything. And it’s the Left’s obsession with her that keeps her in the public eye. I have seen more headlines less than flattering about her and her family in the MSM since the end of the election, than for any othe losing running mate that I can remember. Even Al Gore went into relative obscurity until he does someting newsworthy like make a documentary. Nowadays, every time Levi opens his pie hole, the left is all over it as a news story.
Report comment to moderator
It’s just like a lynching. One person has an agenda. They get the crowd angry. When the dust clears someone is dead and no one remembers why they hated that person so much. Oh well, they MUST have done something terrible like murder or we wouldn’t have hung them. THINK ABOUT IT!!!
You people are being controlled and you don’t even have a clue.
Report comment to moderator
The Left’s knee jerk reactions to Sarah Palin and the mere mention of her name is as predictable annd vitriolic as the Left’s knee jerk reactions to George Bush.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING #25
Ok, go to a liberal site, or mainstream media for that matter. They talk about Rush, Rush, Rush all the time. They take a break and talk about Beck, Beck, Beck for days. And how many times do THEY talk about Sarah? Have they ever stopped talking about Sarah? They are so obsessed they went to Alaska and hounded her. They take time out to write books about her. AND WE’RE OBSESSED???
This blog talks about Sarah twice and WE’RE obsessed?
MUSING, is this the only blog or news you read? You need to GET OUT MORE.
Report comment to moderator
KLASKO #38
well said
Report comment to moderator
26. Oh please, even SNL noticed the left’s unfair treatment of Hilary and her husband has more responsibility than she does now. She never had a chance.
Report comment to moderator
News2me @ 33 – You really don’t get it, do you?
Comprehensive sex ed includes abstinence. Abstinence-only, which Palin supports, does not mention birth control at all. It has been shown to be an epic failure. Most states rejected funding for it, and those which took the money and implemented the program showed skyrocketing rates of teen pregnancy.
Report comment to moderator
One attack book is now conflated with an obsession?
Hmmm I guess one swallow does make a Spring.
What or where is the other evidence of this obsession? I don’t see it in the (lefty) media I consume, so whatever is that you all are evidently reading? Seriously, what is it that’s ticking so loud for you? It could be I miss it, or think nothing of it.
Or it really a case of hearsay — passing on and inflating the ews from some one else?
Or perhaps you and Mickey only mean obsession in the same way the local store announces its sale as “the lowest price of the season!” Fluff and puffery and little more.
Report comment to moderator
Ya know, our resident leftists could actually prove what they merely assert — that they’re not even interested in, let alone obsessed with Sarah Palin — if they would just stop commenting on SP-related blog items.
Report comment to moderator
David L. Not to mention, again, saying word one about the parody book the Left is planning to release on exactly the same day as Palin’s.
“The Left?”
The Left, Inc.?
The Left, LLC?
What do you mean, “the Left?” The book is the work of a small number of people. There is no sinister cabal called “the Left” that is, as a group, creating and publishing it.
But as for it, so what? Mickey’s post describes it as “a series of essays,” and there’s nothing “stalkerish” about that as far as I can tell. I have seen books written by various conservatives that were written in response to and in order to criticize books by Al Franken, Michael Moore and others … sounds like pretty much the same kind of thing.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko: And it’s the Left’s obsession with her that keeps her in the public eye.
Oh, right. Her appearing on talk shows, making speeches, commenting on public affairs and publishing a book don’t have any role in that.
Good grief.
Report comment to moderator
I, for one, find Palin fascinating — especially that she can take the nonsense (there is a better word) thrown her way. What is so amusing is that the left pushes feminism, but when a pretty woman gets attention, the knives and stones come out. Oddly, the left does not respond to “idea,” but rather clothes and eyeglass frames.
Trust me, News2me, you get it!
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner’s word is so expressive: “seculibidiots”
Report comment to moderator
Well, that would be a good third of the threads on this blog.
See, the Left isn’t the only group obsessed with Sarah Palin. The Right is too.
Note the irony in Mickey posting yet another Sarah Palin thread with a title sneering about somebody else’s obsession with the woman. If Sarah sneezes, three threads about it sprout on WMB.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko, it reads better this way:
The Left’s knee jerk reactions to Sarah Palin and the mere mention of her name is as predictable annd vitriolic as the Left’s Right’s knee jerk reactions to George Bush Barack Obama
Report comment to moderator
I am tag-challenged today
Klasko, it reads better this way:
The Left’s knee jerk reactions to Sarah Palin and the mere mention of her name is as predictable annd vitriolic as the
Left’sRight’s knee jerk reactions toGeorge BushBarack ObamaReport comment to moderator
So Sarah Palin is the new George Bush. That must be George’s fault, too.
Report comment to moderator
Birkenstock’s Second Law of Political Knee-Jerkiness
Left knee jerk over George Bush = Right knee jerk over Barack Obama
Left knee jerk over Sarah Palin = Right knee jerk over Hilary Clinton
Report comment to moderator
#44
Report comment to moderator
JJF
and you are THERE too
Report comment to moderator
Travis,
Even better! Much much more symmetrical than my change to Klasko’s original!
Report comment to moderator
Obamas bots are here to moderate what we talk about on…uh…
whose site was this again? I keep thinking I’m on a liberal site.
And Obama moderates emails.
I’ve had more than one email stopped by the email moderators. The one I find amusing was the copy of a bumper sticker which said, “Impeach Obama”. He hadn’t even been elected yet. They paused it. He got elected. They stopped it dead in it’s tracks.
Report comment to moderator
News2Me:
Are you charging that the Obama administration — no, even Obama as a candidate — stopped certain emails from being delivered?
Are you being serious?
How do you think candidate Obama acquired this godlike power over teh interwebs?
Report comment to moderator
The Going Rouge book does seem creepy and stalkerish. And it does indeed speak to the insecurity and frenzied hatred that many on the left seem to share regarding Palin. Kind of reminds me of some of the attitudes toward Obama from the right…
Report comment to moderator
Travis and RoyClay – When I finish writing my book, I’ll have to get you guys to edit it for me. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Sarah Palin is walking proof of what Rush has said for a long time — that Republican women are much better looking than Democrat ones. That’s what drives the Left crazy – it’s a constant sharp stick in their sides. I mean, they are so nuts that their “response” book makes Palin look even better than the cover of her own book!
Report comment to moderator
Although, I will say, they did use a nice picture of her….but then, I don’t think I’ve seen a bad one. The coloring book cover is very tacky.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, I didn’t see your post Buzzy, but I do agree.
Report comment to moderator
JJF 49: that was a joke, right?
Otherwise, a demonstration that you can’t resist replying to a comment about your inability to resist replying.
Report comment to moderator
And personally, I’m more obsessed with who President Obama has surrounding him pushing stealth agendas than I am with him. He’s nothing but a figurehead.
Report comment to moderator
KLASKO,
The Czars are troubling. I would think Congress would find them troubling too, but then Congress seems to have its hands full these days.
Report comment to moderator
Hi there Klasko,
I think the sentiment you express in post #65 exactly mirrors the Left reaction about President Bush during this stage of his presidency. He too was largely viewed as a figurehead – the guy on camera speaking, but not the guy coming up with policy ideas and strategy. The Left’s ‘obsession’ was on the stealth agendas being pushed by his advisory team (Cheney, Rove, et. al.)
Again, see Birkenstock’s Second Law!
Report comment to moderator
Palin can’t measure up to someone like Pelosi.
Pelosi integrity is underwhelming and the intelligence same.
Report comment to moderator
JJF
Do you think only God could control the web?
He has already talked about getting the power to shut it off completely.
This isn’t hearsay, it’s experience.
Ask the people in Minn about being arrested for putting out ads against Obama, and he wasn’t even elected yet.
I’m not afraid of him, but you should be if you aren’t prepared for the future.
Report comment to moderator
There is really nothing inherently wrong with expressing disagreement. The problem seems to me to be the manner in which our disagreement is expressed. Invective disagreement rarely invites constructive interaction. The ultimate result is war. (Overpowering and subduing opponents in various ways.)
Jesus certainly overpowers and subdues His enemies, but with simple teaching and sacrificial love.
It is easy to denigrate those with whom we disagree. The real challenge is to really care about them as persons and treat and speak to them accordingly.
If only I could get you stupid idiots to understand this.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
“The librarian scandal was enough for me to dismiss her as a charlatan.”
“abstinence-only sex ed in public schools, which causes a lot more problems than it solves, censoring librarians, which makes people who use libraries angry,”
“Comprehensive sex ed includes abstinence. Abstinence-only, which Palin supports, does not mention birth control at all.”
Sarah Palin supports teaching abstinence as a necessary part of sex education since it is the only sure defense against unwanted pregnancy and stds. She has never advocated “abstinence only” programs that ignore a comprehensive approach to sex education as Thomas1 charges.
Sarah Palin did not attempt to censor any books in any library. Some of the titles listed in the initial reported accusations were not even written at the time she supposedly tried to have the books removed. That these accusations have been debunked does not stop Palin slimers like Thomas1 from attacking their caricature.
Report comment to moderator
From the Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire 2006: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
Ken, When was it that Palin changed her position on abstinence only education?
Report comment to moderator
Good post, Ken.
The following link is over a year old, but it is helpful for some of the misinformation that keeps going around:
http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/
For about any of the facts, rumors, half-truths, and outright lies about her that were circulating at the time, if you want to see them confirmed, debunked, and/or ridiculed, that link is for you.
For example:
No, she doesn’t believe in “abstinence only” education. Yes, she thinks abstinence is an effective way of preventing pregnancy. Duh. Yes, she believes kids should learn about condom use in schools.
Or this:
(40) yes, she did ask the librarian if some books could be withdrawn because of being offensive; no, they couldn’t; yes, it was “rhetorical”, at least as was reported contemporaneously in 1996[1] ; yes she did threaten to fire the librarian a month later; no, that wasn’t over the books thing but instead over administrative issues; no, the librarian wasn’t fired either; yes, the librarian was a big supporter of one of her political opponents; yes, the librarian was also the girlfriend of the Chief of Police mentioned above; no, this is not the first time in the history of civilization that someone has been threatened with being fired over a political dispute
(41) No the list of books she wanted to ban that’s being passed around isn’t real; among other things, it includes a number of books published after her time in office there.
(42) No, that hasn’t actually deterred people from claiming it really is true even if the list isn’t correct. For example:
(43) No, I don’t understand why a fake list is supposed to fill me with dread, either.
Report comment to moderator
Fisherman! Much better said than I could say. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
When was it that Palin changed her position on abstinence only education?
She didn’t. Here’s what she said:
“I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don’t have a problem with that. That doesn’t scare me, so it’s something I would support also.”
Report comment to moderator
#73
KWATSON
Apparently ‘explicit sex-ed’ and ‘abstinence only’ are not the same thing.
Google it or check this [very old] link if you want to
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/13/us/explicit-sex-education-is-opposed-by-most-parents-in-survey.html
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry my post was jumbled, that should be sex-ed and explicit sex ed are not the same. The question Palin was asked referred to explicit sex ed.
Report comment to moderator
Good post, Fisherman, except it’s wrong on whether the librarian was fired: The same week that Palin raised the issue she fired Baker (then using her married name Emmons) as librarian, claiming she was not “loyal” to the new administration and had supported Palin’s opponent in the election. She said the dismissal was not connected to questions of censorship, and that she had dismissed all city department heads and told them they could re-apply for their jobs.
After a public outcry, Palin rescinded the dismissal of the librarian.
The local newspaper reporter who covered the controversy, Paul Stuart, claims he was later told by the librarian that Palin wanted three specific books removed from the library.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas #79,
I read that before, but forgot where. Did she also ask for her staff to voluntarily tender resignations too at one point (as a test of loyalty I heard)? I’m not sure if that one is true or not, so don’t quote me.
There’s so much floating around about her–and some of it is definitely not true, though I’m sure some is. She was so unknown before being thrust into the national spotlight, and with so little time to uncover whatever there is to know about her life, background, job performance and political philosophy. I guess she’ll address many of these things in her book.
Report comment to moderator
#79 Thomas1.
I don’t think it is my posts that you are referring to.
I have no first hand knowledge about Gov. Palin.
Report comment to moderator
There have been other conservatives every bit as controversial as Palin.
I dont recall any massive media hype about poor ol’ Alan Keyes. He woulda lept at the chance to become a punching bag for the kook leftwing wingnutter fringe.
Palin’s silence in this onslaught can do nothing but gain her more support. And the nutcase haters will invariably be linked to Democrats
Report comment to moderator
Alan Keyes was never a serious contender. Palin, by hooking up with McCain, was. And could be again.
In fact, Sawgunner, that observation of yours makes my point. We on the left are not “obsessed” with Sarah Palin, at least no more than the right is obsessed with Obama, Hilary Clinton and others. But we do recognize that she’s a national figure who has at least some chance of gaining national office — Keyes really does not and never has.
So the attention paid to her is entirely reasonable and commensurate with her political status, and not the irrational “obsession” Mickey and others would like to believe it is.
Report comment to moderator
Steve: Why do you think that Palin has some chance, but Keyes has no chance of gaining national office?
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus: Has Keyes ever run in a national election and gotten many votes? Palin has been on a ticket that did. Keyes got 0.6 percent of the primary vote in Texas in 2008, and 2.7 percent in North Carolina. He’s run for president four times and has never done any better than that.
How do you think he might improve?
Report comment to moderator
This thread proves my hypothesis that Christian bloggers are obsessed with the unbecoming emotions of liberals.
FISHERMAN says more about the attackers
JOEL MARK the left is so threatened by women and minority conservatives
LLOYD the left attacks what they fear!
DAVID L. slobbering lefties . . . creepy, stalkerish . .
SAWGUNNER . . intense lefty hatred . . the seculibidiots throw up . . the kook leftwing wingnutter fringe . . nutcase haters . .
MAKE IT MAN Wanna see the left go nuts? Just throw a thread out there about Palin. Red meat! Wooo! Snap! Snarl! Growl.. slobber!
NEWS2ME Sometimes I feel like someone in the city found out I’m a Christian so they came to my house to call me names . . It’s just like a lynching . . When the dust clears someone is dead . . THINK ABOUT IT!!! You people are being controlled and you don’t even have a clue . . This blog talks about Sarah twice and WE’RE obsessed?
ROGER PATNO childish actions . . pouty kids . . a pack of hyenas . .
KBELLS Oh please, even SNL noticed the left’s unfair treatment of Hilary
NJLAWYER when a pretty woman gets attention, the knives and stones come out. Oddly, the left does not respond to “idea,” but rather clothes and eyeglass frames.
BUZZY Republican women are much better looking than Democrat ones. That’s what drives the Left crazy – it’s a constant sharp stick in their sides. I mean, they are so nuts
Report comment to moderator
Moth, it appears we have just observed your obession in post 86, which should surprise anyone on this blog.
Report comment to moderator
POST 87 should read:
“Moth, it appears we have just observed your obession in post 86, which shouldn’t surprise anyone on this blog.
Report comment to moderator
Moth, you sure put a lot of hard work into that research project.
Report comment to moderator
MICKEY: . . you can color in lipstick on pigs . .
That would be a mistake. The animal Sarah Palin compared herself to when she introduced herself to us was not a sow but a bitch, a pit bull with lipstick.
Report comment to moderator
I think it was the NYT today that ran an article about Rahm Emanuel who admitted that it is all about WINNING. And the left picks on Karl Rove. They’ve got their own.
Victoria, I hope SP laughs all the way to the bank.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – 91
I think she’s already been to the bank and planning a lot more trips. The book is going to be a big success!
Report comment to moderator
news2me post 39,
well I frequent both right wing and left wing blogs. We can perhaps argue that some left wing blogs get obsesed with Rush, Beck or Palin, and some right wing blogs seem obsessed with Obama, birth certificates, and civilian grand juries.
And it is perhaps arguable that neither approach is adding much true light to the conversation.
However WMB would seem to aspire to be above this.
And then to bemoan the left’s obsession with Palin, during a period when WMB starts back to back discussions on Palin is, shall we say, ironic.
Report comment to moderator
RR post 44,
but of course I have not in general been commenting on Sarah Palin, I have been commenting on those commenting on Sarah Palin.
Report comment to moderator
Having worked for Borders and B & N for many years back in the day I can tell you that this will make ZERO difference.
Yeah most of the booksellers will have fun with the 4-5 “Rouge” books that the buyer will order – (selling it to Palin fans, facing them out where her book is, etc) but they will quit when they find out how much work they will be causing themselves when the have to do the exchanges.
Hey if it amuses her critics fine. But this lady is the real deal and they hate it.
Report comment to moderator
Phoenix – 95
The book is hot stuff – Oprah would never have bothered to invite Sarah Palin if the book wasn’t the top read this fall.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, you post at #94 is contradicted by your post at #7, in my view.
Report comment to moderator
Steve: I guess I didn’t ask the question very well in #84. Why do you think that Palin has so much more appeal than Keyes? Because she’s had so much more national exposure? Because Keyes is viewed as too extreme?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 97,
reread both posts 94 and post 7 carefully.
Report comment to moderator
I read them carefully already. You contradict yourself, in general, in my view.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus: Oh, I see.
Both of those, really. By being made part of a national ticket, she got to leapfrog the primary process. Nothing wrong with that, it’s frequently the case with running mates, but it means we haven’t yet seen how voters on a national level would choose if they were voting for her directly. But she’s already gained a great deal of recognizibility from it.
She is less extreme than Keyes, and that helps. My personal belief is that she would not do well on her own — although likely better than Keyes — but unless she tries a run, we won’t really know.
The fact that she’s keeping herself in the public eye (and contrary to Klasko, the alleged liberal “obsession” has nothing to do with that) suggests that she’s at least considering a run. She may ultimately not do it, or maybe she will, but as long as she’s keeping herself in the spotlight, those of us who don’t think she would be good for the country are entitled to be critical without having an armchair psychologist diagnose “obsession.”
And seriously, this thread is ridiculous. People on the left are doing nothing with Palin that people on the right don’t do with Al Franken, Michael Moore, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats. Trying to pretend you are all without sin on the matter and “the Left” is always guilty is beyond ludicrous.
Report comment to moderator
And trying to pretend that the left isn’t sinning is also beyond ludicrous.
Report comment to moderator
From what I read, Palin had racked up legal bills totaling more than 1/3 of her net worth. Her net worth was put at about 1.2M and the legal bills over $500,000 not being paid by the state of Alaska. That is an onerous burden for any American family. I seriously doubt Michael Moore, Obama, Hillary, or Pelosi are under this kind of financial attack.
Report comment to moderator
Those legal bills were racked up defending herself from bogus lawsuits.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 100,
generaly you are consistent in your ability to undertsnad the posts. You may, however, in this specific case, have missed a nuance.
Report comment to moderator
klasko post 104,
and from ethics charges which were not so bogus.
Report comment to moderator
Which ethics charges Musing. The only thing I’m aware of is that she took her kids with her on the state dime a few times. And that was a judgement call, since sometimes it was allowable. And she paid the travel money back.
OTOH, if you want to see real ethics violations we could have some more threads about ACORN or better yet, Rangel, who, last I heard, was still cheerfully chairing his committee, and from what I’ve read, not even denying some of the charges.
No. That just won’t fly. It’s no secret that I didn’t support the McCain-Palin ticket (no regrets about that), and I do question whether or not she’s a bit over-controling, but there’s no doubt that Palin and her familly have been targeted for destruction. Dems practically gnash their teeth if she gets good press. It’s a little disturbing actually.
Report comment to moderator
DJ post 105,
The following would seem to be a partial list:
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/838912.html
Now one can examine each one and make a judgement call regarding them. But as you note, Pain did refund state money whcih were used for personal use. And of course there is the issue of her ebrother in law in the state police which seems reasonably supported by the facts..
So you may argue that some were bogus. You do not seem to be in a position to argue that all are bogus.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, #105
I think JoelMark has got you this time. You’ve mentioned Palin at least once in most of your posts. Fisherman didn’t mention Palin at all until post #81…and then, only to say he has no personal knowledge of her. ‘Fess up: it may be for different reasons, but we’re all a little obsessedd with the governor, aren’t we? [She says, as she posts the 108th comment on the topic of 'Palin Obsession'.]
Report comment to moderator
DJ post 107,
you and JOel would seem to be almost correct. I suggest two thoughts:
1) look at genesis and direction of post 7 (which I suggest still remains the only ne directly addressing Palin in this thread)
2) the wording of 94
I suggest that your and Joel’s comments demonstrate a classic failure mode which occurs in these discussions.
Generally I try to avoid strong abolutist statements.
Certain types of conservatives, based simply on their belief structure, do tend to make absolutist statements, and often seem to expect and misinterpret as absolutist the statements of others.
Report comment to moderator
DJ,
and have you not considered that perhaps I structured post 94 in such a way as to trigger certain classes of misinterpretation to see who would strike on it?
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
#108
Thanks for the link. Actually, I didn’t claim that all the lawsuits were bogus.. But I do question the quantity and quality of the complaints that have necessitated such a huge attorney fee to defend, and suspect that they have been created largely to create an impossible financial burden. I would expect to have seen something more substantial than a few questionable trips with her children. At first, I thought the BIL issue would be big, but it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, and it may turn out in the end that she skated close to the line without legally crossing it. (I did say I wondered about her control instincts.) Many of the complaints have already been dismissed.
But I stand by my statement that the Dems practically gnash their teeth if she gets good press.
#110
I will take you at your word that you are more obsessed with us than her (#25).
I still think your leap from Fisherman’s (#2) very general comment, directly to “indeed I have noted this about Palin’s criticsims of others” (#7) constitutes a comment on SP herself rather than strictly speaking a reference to Fisherman’s. However, given all your other comments that I have read, it’s probably more charitable to acquit you of SP obsession–though I cannot acquit the rest of us.
Report comment to moderator
#111
HA! You trickster!
Report comment to moderator
DJ post 112,
nor did I claim that all law suits were not bogus.
The absolutist approach often leads to inconvenient logical errors.
I well understood that post 7 can be called either way, and noted that before I created post 94.
I still intended post 7 as an explicit comment on Fisherman’s comment trying to show that as posed fisherman’s comments has two edges.
I use the word generally and words in general frequently on purpose: almost nothing is ever truly absolutist in nature and certainly people’s interpretations can further weaken any absolutist argument. And a side theme of many of my discussions is to demonstrate the folly of poorly formed absolutist arguments.
But my intent in post 94 I believe remains solid: my focus here has been on those commenting on Sarah Palin, not in commenting on Sarah Palin.
And dmeonstrably, as noted by three discussion groups in WMB on Sarah in as many days (not to mention the truly bizarre comments regarding her physical attractvieness) suggests an obsesssion on the right with Sarah Palin which is trivially and easily observed even in WMB.
Report comment to moderator
Not a “national nightmare” so much as a national joke. Palin was the GOP attempt to commit suicide by Ferarro. Worked pretty well.
Just say “no” to tokenism.
Report comment to moderator
Sarah was thrown in to bolster a sagging attempt by McCain, to appeal to the women’s vote. She was good-looking, heady, a governor of a large state, had a rather nice family structure and could speak in generalese, (which btw, McCain couldn’t) McCain was an old war-dog, who made his mark by being a POW and having a famous father. He had no personal appeal, and no clear-cut agenda, (something the Repubs seriously lack).
Palin was fresh face; period. She still has an appeal by a huge majority of Conservatives, (Musing says it’s only 20%), clearing the way for some kind of run in the near future. I can’t see her running for the Presidency; it would be a faux-paux for the Repubs to endorse her as a leading candidate. She could run as a State Senator however; beating the tar out of her opponent. She will be more effective as a Senator and can join the ranks with Michelle Bachman. But, what do I know; I’m just another face in the crowd. LOL. .. .
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!