Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
July 14, 2009
POLITICS: Sarah Palin and the Scum of the Earth

If there is a lesson to be learned from Sarah Palin's withdrawal from public office, it is this: if you want to take out a female politician, you go after her children.

There is likely no one and single reason for Palin's withdrawal, and she cited a bunch of them in her disorganized "you won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore" speech. But two things seem to explain most logically Palin's behavior: she was ground down by the unusually vitriolic campaign waged against her, and the aspect of that campaign that did the most damage was the attacks on her children. As Palin put it in her speech:

In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous...well, in response to asking: "Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?" It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" The "hell yeah" sealed it - and someday I'll talk about the details of that...I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more...what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT - that time is precious...the world needs more "Trigs", not fewer.

All national politicians take their share of potshots; it comes with the territory, and anybody who can't take the heat, as Harry Truman famously said, should get out of the kitchen. And with that heat inevitably comes some spillover onto a politician's family members - especially if those family members are politically outspoken adults, Washington lobbyists, or businesspeople involved in shady practices. But some grief will come as well to soft-spoken spouses and minor children. It's the nature of the business.

But no politician in modern memory, not even Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, has faced the sort of ferociously personal assault that greeted Palin from the instant she set foot on the national stage, in many cases before her detractors even knew anything about her besides that she was female, attractive, pro-life and pro-gun. And while the pervasive crude sexual references to Palin were horrible, the assault on her family was the worst of all. Palin has worn many hats in her life - Vice-Presidential candidate, Governor, Mayor, Oil & Gas Commissioner, City Councilwoman, sportscaster, point guard, runner, beauty queen, moose hunter - but it's clear that the role that defines her is her role as the mother of five children. And as James Taranto put it, "If you've never met or had a mother, the thing to know about them is that they tend to be very protective of their children."

There is fairly widespread public and media agreement that criticizing, mocking or making more than glancing political use of President Obama's two daughters is an absolute no-no. For the media's part, the effort to spare the President's children dates back to the Clinton years. Yes, there were mean-spirited jokes told at the expense of Chelsea Clinton, but Republicans who did so (John McCain, Rush Limbaugh) almost always immediately apologized, and Saturday Night Live eventually eased off on Chelsea. There was also regular vitriol from the left, mainly in the blogospehere, aimed at Jenna and Barbara Bush, and no apologies of any kind. But much of that was under the public radar. (John Kerry and John Edwards both bringing up Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter in the 2004 debates wasn't, but at least Mary Cheney is an adult). We have simply never seen anything like the targeting of Palin's children, under a variety of flimsy pretenses that no mother would ever accept as a basis for going after her kids.

One must attribute at least part of the vileness of these attacks, among left-wing blogs, to how very few of the leading left-wing bloggers have children of their own - were conservatives tempted to mock Obama's daughters, they would at least have to face their own daughters and sons at the end of a day of doing so. A political movement of the childless has no empathy for children. Empathy for other human beings requires human decency, and decency breeds hesitation - a hesitation the Online Left has never displayed. Were any of these people capable of shame, they would be feeling it. Instead, they have been gleefully dancing on Palin's political grave ever since. It is worth considering what the "New Politics" has looked like when applied to Sarah Palin, because it presents a cautionary tale for Republicans with families.

Fittingly, Carl Cannon noted that one of the nastiest lines of attack came from a former Democratic House and Senate candidate writing on the pages of Daily Kos:

The most egregious example was posted on Daily Kos on Sept. 12, 2008 by Paul Lewis Hackett III, a trial lawyer and U.S. Marine Corps veteran of Iraq, who ran in 2005 for a vacant seat in the House from Ohio's second congressional district, losing narrowly in a district President Bush had carried easily just a year earlier.

Fretting that the Obama campaign was going to lose Ohio to McCain, Hackett proposed his own solution: A series of savage attacks on the GOP ticket focusing on Sarah Palin and her family. Here is what he wrote:

The message (would be) simple and the professionals can refine it but essentially it should contain these elements: Sarah Palin? Can't keep her solemn oath of devotion to her husband and had sex with his employee. Sarah Palin? Accidentally got pregnant at age 43 and the tax payers of Alaska have to pay for the care of her disabled child. Sarah Palin? Unable to teach her 16 year old daughter right from wrong and now another teenager is pregnant. Sarah Palin? Can you trust Sarah Palin and her values with America's future?

Apparently, Hackett took the rumors of an affair from the National Enquirer, which offered no proof, or even evidence. He then segued into an even uglier line of attack, arguing that it's irresponsible to bring a handicapped baby into the world. This is not "pro-choice," it's pro-eugenics. It's also creepy and illiberal, and reinforces conservatives' worst fears about Democrats and the issue of abortion. And, oh yes, Bristol Palin's age was wrong. She was nearly 18 when Hackett wrote this screed, not 16. This proved a harbinger, too, as misinformation slipped easily from the left blogosphere into mainstream coverage.

TIME Magazine noted that back in August, "National Enquirer sent four reporters to Alaska, hoovering up gossip about drug use by her older children and long-ago marital infidelity"; stories were run on drug use by her oldest son Track, who was serving in Iraq and thus, ironically, unavailable to defend himself. Cannon noted how Trig Trutherism forced the story of Bristol's pregnancy into the fore, and how differently it was handled than crackpot conspiracy theories on the Right:

Also, it's important to remember why the Palin family even acknowledged Bristol's pregnancy: Because a thousand "liberal" Web sites, led by Daily Kos, the favored site of leftist Democrats, filled cyberspace with off-the-wall theories that Trig Palin was really Bristol's child and that Sarah had faked her own pregnancy. This was truly ugly territory, and nutty besides. It's not terribly different from the Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim-not-born-in-this-country stuff, with one crucial distinction: The Obama Muslim stuff was either debunked or ignored by the media --not the conspiracy theories about Trig Palin's birth. In some quarters of the evolving new media - The Huffington Post and Bill Maher's HBO program, to name two - the Palin pregnancy hoax was repeated. Some traditional outlets, including Vanity Fair and, most inexplicably, The Atlantic blog written by Andrew Sullivan, kept hammering away at it after it was proven false by photographic evidence and by Bristol's own pregnancy.

Taranto noted the bile spewed specifically at Palin's infant son Trig:

Palin-haters have been unusually uninhibited in their cruel mockery of the governor's children, particularly Bristol and Trig. HotAir.com's "Allahpundit" notes that Palin's resignation moved one Erik Nelson to write a Puffington Host post titled "Palin Will Run in '12 on More Retardation Platform." (Trig Palin has Down's syndrome.)

Nelson thought better of the post, pulled it, and offered an apology. He should have apologized for being unoriginal. Last September the Onion published a fake op-ed attributed to Palin, lauding "my vote-stealing retard baby."

Amanda Carpenter noted not only the attacks on Palin's oldest daughter but also the violence, criminality and abuse of legal process produced by the Palin-haters:

Daughter Bristol Palin's relationship with her baby's father, Levi, has been ripped open for public consumption in the aftermath as he's appeared on "The Tyra Banks Show" to discuss his sexual experiences with her and was seen shirtless in the pages of GQ magazine. When Bristol attempted to become a spokeswoman for abstinence, based on her experience as a teenage mother, she was pilloried as a hypocrite and mouthpiece for her power-hungry mother.

In the midst of the election season, Mrs. Palin's personal e-mail account was hacked by the son of a Democratic Tennessee representative. Then, an arsonist set her hometown church on fire in December.

Mrs. Palin has fended off 15 ethics complaints since last fall, costing her at least $500,000 in legal bills, according to her aides. Most of the complaints would be considered frivolous by most reasonable measures, filed by state-based liberal bloggers for things like wearing a jacket made by a company who sponsored her husband's snow machine races to a public event and conducting television interviews in her state-provided office.

Ben Voth drives home the point about the church-burning in particular - the culprits for which have never been apprehended - which led Palin to apologize to her fellow congregants for the negative attention her career brought down on them:

A public figure openly called for Palin to be raped during the campaign. Months after the losing campaign was over, a major comedian joked about the fictitious rape of one of her daughters. Immediately after the election, her church was burned. It's fairly difficult to reconcile this 'heat' as something conventional in politics. In fact, there might be some good reason to collectively indict Palin critics for their silent complicity.

This would go a long way to explain why many in the public seem more drawn to Palin after the resignation and the absurd media reactions to it. Keep in mind that these incidents remain unrepented public attacks. The media refused to offer much comment on the burning of Palin's church -- a silence which conveyed an implied endorsement of that attack. Imagine if Obama had lost the election and Jeremiah Wright's church had been burned. Where would the punditry be?

Meanwhile, the NY Times noted the relentless strain the media attention put on Bristol:

Paparazzi regularly stalked the family, once ambushing Bristol Palin when she arrived with her newborn and her father at the Beehive beauty salon. Mr. Palin was forced to wait for her in the car with Bristol's baby, Tripp, whose image was fetching a particularly high tabloid bounty.

If Bristol Palin was avoiding the limelight, her estranged boyfriend was seeking it. Mr. Johnston appeared bare-chested in GQ magazine holding Tripp. He told the talk show host Tyra Banks that he was certain Ms. Palin knew his relationship with her teenage daughter had been sexual.

Then, of course, there was the highly-publicized flap with David Letterman:

During his opening monologue on CBS' "Late Night" Monday, Letterman poked fun at Palin's visit with her family to a New York Yankees game this past weekend. "There was one awkward moment during the seventh inning stretch," Letterman said. "Her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

Letterman also said the hardest part about the Palins' trip to New York was "keeping [former New York Gov.] Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter."

Presumably, Letterman thought it was OK to make sex jokes about Bristol - really, does she deserve that? would you feel the same way if she was your daughter going through young single motherhood after a teen pregnancy? - but he misfired badly, as Palin was accompanied by 14-year-old Willow at the game. (Letterman also took the kind of potshot no liberal politician would be forced to endure, cracking that Palin "was in New York to pick up some 'slutty flight attendant' lipstick."). Palin, predictably, went nuclear, and ultimately forced an apology from Letterman, but once again she was off spending time defending her daughters from the national media.

Ross Douthat sums up the nature of the attacks on Palin:

Here are lessons of the Sarah Palin experience, for any aspiring politician who shares her background and her sex. Your children will go through the tabloid wringer. Your religion will be mocked and misrepresented. Your political record will be distorted, to better parody your family and your faith. (And no, gentle reader, Palin did not insist on abstinence-only sex education, slash funds for special-needs children or inject creationism into public schools.)

Male commentators will attack you for parading your children. Female commentators will attack you for not staying home with them. You'll be sneered at for how you talk and how many colleges you attended. You’ll endure gibes about your "slutty" looks and your "white trash concupiscence," while a prominent female academic declares that your "greatest hypocrisy" is the "pretense" that you're a woman. And eight months after the election, the professionals who pressed you into the service of a gimmicky, dreary, idea-free campaign will still be blaming you for their defeat.

All of this had something to do with ordinary partisan politics. But it had everything to do with Palin's gender and her social class.

As the TIME profile notes, Palin closely followed and insisted on a response to every attack hurled her way. It's the polar opposite of George W. Bush's attitude, which for 9 years (including the 2000 campaign) was to ignore criticism almost entirely. The upside of Bush's approach was confident and steady leadership; the downside was a complete abdication of the field of public debate to his enemies, and an emboldening of them (if no charge would be answered, there was no downside in making the most inflammatory or spurious of charges). Palin's push-back-on-everything view, however, has its own costs, as it entangles the leader herself in personally absorbing every body blow. A more logical division of labor is for the candidate to hire people who do the daily work of fighting back, as long as they're given enough information to fight back with.

The second prong of the attacks that brought down Palin was the abuse by left-wing bloggers of Alaska's wide-open system (previously supported, ironically, by Palin herself) allowing almost anyone to file an ethics complaint against the Governor that would automatically trigger a costly and distracting investigation. Martin A. Knight has looked in detail at how this system was gamed by left-wing bloggers, sometimes pseudonymously, and the more than $500,000 in legal bills it imposed on the Palin family, in addition to the costs to Alaska taxpayers as the Governor's legal staff was swamped by the assault. The ethics charges against Palin were all unsuccessful and generally frivolous, but that wasn't the point; the effort to taint her good name and bankrupt her financially was. As TIME noted:

Since the election in November, Palin has been hit with at least 10 ethics complaints for such alleged offenses as allowing her picture to be used to promote Alaskan fisheries and wearing a logo on her snowmobile gear. One complaint was filed under a pseudonym borrowed from a British soap opera. Most were quickly dismissed. And yet, Palin says, she arrived at the conclusion that there would always be more and that the complaints would consume her remaining time as governor.

Followers of Palin's Twitter feed in recent months would have to notice that her most enthusiastic posts involved the dismissal of these various complaints. The ethics complaint machinery was even used to block Palin from accessing funds raised to defray her legal expenses:

While the defense fund has raised more than $250,000, according to its trustee, the money cannot be spent pending resolution of an ethics complaint that contends that the contributions could amount to improper gifts.

That financial strain, unknown to most national politicians, put hardship on her family as well:

Her husband, Todd, her most trusted adviser, was spending less time at her side both because they needed money from his oil industry job, friends say, and because questions had been raised about whether he had been too involved at the Capitol.

The bogus ethics complaint machinery has rolled onward, as witness her attorney's statement on the 18th and 19th ethics complaints filed against Palin:

When Governor Palin announced that she would be resigning, in part, because of the unusual number of frivolous ethics complaints burdening the state of Alaska, that was not intended to be an invitation to file more frivolous ethics complaints. Not everyone got the message. As if to underscore the Governor's point, two more frivolous complaints were filed this week.

For example, Raymond A. Ward (DOB 1947), has apparently filed a state ethics complaint (No. 19) incorrectly alleging that the Governor has appeared on "television and radio variety shows earning and accepting money for personal and private use on state time." These allegations are categorically false. Though signed under "penalty of purgery" (sic) it is apparent that Mr. Ward has no factual basis for the statements he has made.

Governor Palin has never been paid an appearance fee or received other remuneration from any "television or radio" show. She has not been paid for any media interview. The allegations made by Mr. Ward have no basis in truth.

In releasing the complaint publicly today, Mr. Ward violated the confidentiality provision of the Ethics Act.

All of this is on top of the campaign of innumerable falsehoods flung at Palin daily through the campaign, such as when Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times reported falsely that Palin had belonged to an Alaskan third party without bothering to consult voter registration records showing that she's been a registered Republican since being old enough to vote. The Left keeps up the campaign of deliberate smears even now, inventing a story that Palin was resigning under an FBI investigation, which an FBI spokesman unequivocally denied:

"There is absolutely no truth to those rumors that we're investigating her or getting ready to indict her," Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. "It's just not true." He added that there was "no wiggle room" in his comments for any kind of inquiry.

The FBI story was spread with deliberate malice by many left-wing blogs; it had no basis in fact, but who cares? And no line of attack was too petty; when Palin Tweeted that Todd "left fishing grnds to join me this wkend; but now he’s back slaying salmon & working the kids @ the site; anxious to join ‘em!," left-wing Washington Post writer Greg Sargent, his sensibilities strained to breaking by the thought of salmon fishing, sniped that she was "looking forward to spending more time with my family killing animals." Perhaps the most amusingly baroque theory was a radio caller to Al Sharpton's show who suggested that Palin was dropping out because she had murdered Michael Jackson. Sharpton called the theory "interesting."

Naturally, the Palin camp suspects that the blog and media assault is more coordinated than it appears:

"A lot of this comes from Washington, D.C. The trail is pretty direct and pretty obvious to us," says Meg Stapleton, a close Palin adviser in Alaska. Awaiting a flight back to Anchorage from distant Dillingham, Stapleton adds that the anti-Palin offensive seems lifted straight from The Thumpin', which describes the political strategies of Rahm Emanuel, who is now the White House chief of staff. "It's the Sarah Palin playbook. It's how they operate," Stapleton says.

Palin and her Alaska circle find evidence for their suspicions about the White House in the person of Pete Rouse, who lived in Juneau for a time before he became chief of staff to a young U.S. Senator named Barack Obama. Rouse, they note, is a friend of former Alaska state senator Kim Elton, who pushed the first ethics investigation of Palin, examining her controversial firing of the state's public-safety commissioner. Both Rouse and Elton have joined the Obama Administration.

Regardless of the source, at the end of the day, all of this presents something of an ethical conundrum for the Right: whether to find a way to disarm these kinds of assaults, or failing that, to imitate them. Either way, it won't stop until the other side has a downside for continuing in this vein. The history of national politics suggests, unfortunately, that the latter is more usually the path taken: after absorbing years of harrassing Independent Counsel investigations and a bogus sexual harrassment flap, the Right turned those same weapons on Bill Clinton. After Newt Gingrich mastered the machinery of House Ethics complaints to bring down Speaker Jim Wright, the same machinery was used to help topple Newt. The Right will have a decision to make: whether to make like villians on "24" and adopt the war of personal attrition against family members used by the left-wing blogs, or accept that some punches should not be thrown and some playing fields simply can't be leveled. Neither choice is an appealing one, and for now at least the fact that the Right lacks the paid online 24/7 resources of the Left suggests that it is not even capable of the former. But in time, that worm may turn, and it's hard to see how anything in the world of politics will be improved as a result.

As for Palin herself, she remains a galvanizing figure who commands attention with every move, and we have almost certainly not heard the last of her. There are many ways for her to contribute to the public debate - op-eds, TV appearances, maybe a TV or radio show, book deals - and most of them are not fettered by Alaska's Lilliputian ethics system, while staying outside of public office and formal campaigning may make it easier to shield Palin's children from further abuse. Ironically, less time spent governing Alaska may give her more time to study and reflect on national politics. Only a fool would count her out of the political scene entirely, especially in today's volatile populist climate. But it's hard to see her as a serious presidential contender in the future. Presidents have to put all other things aside for their jobs, even their families. Maybe Barack Obama has broken the mold of requiring presidents to have some relevant experience, and maybe her primary opponent in 2012 would be a one-term Governor (Mitt Romney), but at the end of the day, a one-term governor who didn't even finish her term is not a credible presidential contender.

My reaction to Palin's decision, the more I think about it, is in some ways the opposite of my reaction to Mark Sanford. Palin has been a deep disappointment politically - she could have accomplished a lot more. Those of us who saw in her toughness, combativeness and joyful presence on the campaign trail a possible President are inevitably disappointed, as we've been disappointed again and again by Republicans - Sanford, Rudy, Fred, McCain, Romney - who one way or another always seemed to lack the fire to take the battle to the other side day in and day out for the cause. But as a human being, she walks away a success in a way that few people in Washington can contemplate, and few of her detractors could ever relate to. The salmon are biting, the sun is shining, the kids are playing, and the road is rising before her, and she's going where she's needed. If that's the epitaph for good, decent mothers in politics, well, we're a smaller, meaner nation for it.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:30 AM | Politics 2009 • | Politics 2012 | Comments (119) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Isn't funny Crank how the open minded tolerant lefties have no problems whatsoever using racist comments against black Republicans like Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele, sexist attacks against Palin, again Condi Rice, hell even Hillary Clinton, homophobic attacks against Cheney, the Catholic Church, etc. Religious attacks against anyone with faith on the right, the catholic Church, the mormons, etc

Its almost like they are a bunch of total hypocrites, with no honor, driven only by the pursuit of power and their desire to destroy anyone that disagrees with them.

But remember they are open minded and......tolerant. I know this because when they are all together, agreeing with each other, echoing only their views, they state this over and over again. And if you don't believe it or dare to disagree with them about their openmindness, their tolerance-you are an intolerant neanderthal that they will attack with every personal, emotional attack they can muster.

George Orwells 1984 is here.

Posted by: dch at July 14, 2009 11:35 AM

Great post! I'm ashamed of our media and politicians all around. I don't think the right did enough defense of Sarah. Whether she is really qualified to be VP or not - who can tell with all of the lies? - she didn't deserve this treatment and it was nothing less than despicable.

My hope was that fair minded people would open their eyes to this. Perhaps they will, but I've been pretty disappointed by even friends on the left concerning Sarah.

Thanks for this.

Posted by: Darcy at July 14, 2009 11:36 AM

It seems to me that when someone who shares the same complete lack of intellectual curiosity as W is put on a national ticket by either party, absolutely everything is fair game to make sure that person never gets a significant amount of power.

Posted by: Frank the Tank at July 14, 2009 11:46 AM

Frank the Tank,
You're saying then that everything is fair game to remove the intellectually and morally bankrupt Barack H. Obama from office. Am I right?

Posted by: bob at July 14, 2009 12:18 PM

I am not ashamed of the media and politicians who kept up the despicable attacks...I despise them for it. Being ashamed of someone hints at a sort of understanding and forgiveness. Not me. And not a lot of other Moms in the country. The liberals don't know what they have unleashed with their hateful treatment of Sarah Palin and her family. They really don't have a clue. But maybe if they consider the donations sarahpac.com has pulled in, maybe they would wise up. But I doubt it. But that's okay...gives Sarah and all of us time to organize, then...clean. their. clocks.

Posted by: Catherine Wilkinson at July 14, 2009 12:22 PM

Crank, the lefty talking point/marching order vis a vis Palin is the term intellectual curiosity. You see it over and over again, but remember they are not just repeating what they are told even thought they keep using the same term over and over again.
How intellectually curious!!!

It is always fascinating that every 4 years per the media and the left(same thing), one if not both of the members on the Republican ticket is a brain dead dullard and, one if not both of the members on the democratic ticket are wise philosopher kings of the highest order. You think at some point that people who question others people intellect might get, oh yeah "intellectually curious" about the same cariacture being repeated every four years. But you would be wrong. How curious!

Though its a good thing that we have "an intellectually curious" leader in President O'bumbler -if he wasn't so smart, so wise, so experienced in, uh, uh, uhm we might have an "idiot" like Palin who would 1) quadruple the budget deficit within 1 month in office 2) pursue policies that will greatly increase inflation and energy prices 3) engage in economic policies that will make a recession into a double dip recession 4) show weakness/appeasement to our adversaries and enemies the world over. 5) or even greatly raise taxes in the middle of a recession. My god, could you imagine how dumb you would have to be to engage in all of that. Oh yeah.....

Its a good thing we don't have a person like Palin who has experience in private business, in the executive branch of government, in energy policy, etc. No, we have the "intellectually curious" O' bumbler with his US Senate experience (no legislation authored or passed, 45% of votes missed for his career, chaired zero meetings despite being a sub-committee chairman), State senate experience (voted present on most major issues) and Community Activist (aka race baiting, welfare enabler).

Posted by: dch at July 14, 2009 12:31 PM

Frank the Tank,

What means would you say are appropriate in dealing with a man who is fiscally, morally, and fundamentally raping your country?

Given the economic pain Obama is raining down on the masses coupled with various displays of what can best be described as questionable judgement, I think there just might be a chance of ramming Palin down the throats of the left.

Just read her recent article on 'Cap and Tax'.

We will have to read the wind, but if the opportunity arrises, and it should be obvious if it does, she certainly will have my vote.

I see it as a giant middle finger to the jackasses who support the chief jackass. The jackass who wants to raise taxes so that Pelosi can have a blank check while having the audacity to tell us it's in our best interest.

To the people who brought America the current nightmare administration, you have been warned.

Posted by: justin at July 14, 2009 12:31 PM

Sarah, unleashed...............I like it. I don't think the left's heard the last of Sarah. At least, I hope not. The leaders in the Democratic party and the Republican party are morally bankrupt. What does evil do when it meets light--tries to destroy it. But light won't be destroyed. God bless Sarah Palin and God bless this country.

Posted by: ProudTexan at July 14, 2009 12:43 PM

Hey, that's a good point, Catherine. I'm with you.

Posted by: Darcy at July 14, 2009 12:44 PM

Stunning piece of work, Crank. This is a shoe-in for the O'Henry Award for short fiction in 2009.

Please, please. Let her continue as the face of the GOP. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: Magrooder at July 14, 2009 1:04 PM

I'm proud to be "scum of the earth" if it means I was part of a movement that made a right-wing religious nut run away in terror.

And this lady thinks she could stand up to the terrorists? What a joke this woman is.

Posted by: jarjar at July 14, 2009 1:08 PM

It seems to me that when a canard-spouting oaf makes assertions that are at odds with reality in order to rationalize the lowest sort of behavior, absolutely nothing is inside his skull.

Posted by: Frank the Tank Yanks the Crank at July 14, 2009 1:09 PM

Oh come on Crank, Palin is cashing in, pure and simple. She returned to Alaska after the failed VP bid deathly unpopular with her fellow Republicans and she's now going to become a tabloid diva and make millions. It's about the children? Why did she seek to put her children on a reality TV show only to have them veto it? And your Limbaugh/McCain apologetics for their Chelsea assaults is laughable.

Get a grip, she's taking the money and running.

Posted by: seth soothsayer at July 14, 2009 1:11 PM

It amazes me how brain-dead Lefties like Frank the Tank are able to be mind-readers, and know that Palin and Bush are "intellectually incurious" simply because their masters in the media tell them so. I am, however, utterly unsurprised by the slimy, amoral effluence of his assertion that "absolutely everything is fair game." Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and sure as water seeks its own level, so, too, does modern Liberalism (so-called) need to seek its own moral level - absolute rock bottom.

Posted by: kiltedscotsman5 at July 14, 2009 1:13 PM

"It seems to me that when a canard-spouting oaf makes assertions that are at odds with reality in order to rationalize the lowest sort of behavior, absolutely nothing is inside his skull."

Project much?

Posted by: justin at July 14, 2009 1:15 PM

Apparently today is sociopath pride day.

Posted by: Henry at July 14, 2009 1:17 PM

"Project much?"

No.

Posted by: Frank the Tank Yanks the Crank at July 14, 2009 1:24 PM

Liberals are rejects of nature, bigots,racists scumbags who hate themselves. Sure we can mock the Obamas nappy head brats. Let's roll and make a bunch of photo shop pictures mocking them. We can fight fire with fire.

Posted by: Barbara at July 14, 2009 1:25 PM

What amazed me from the punditry -from both sides of the aisle- after Palin announced her resignation was the over the top speculation about her future. It seemed that the vast majority of our political class found it almost inconceivable that Palin was tired of having her family life destroyed and wanted to simply go back to being a normal human being again, instead of her move being some either diabolical scheme to set her up for 2016, or a senate run, or a third party etc.etc..

BC, you've done a great job of detailing just how irresponsible Palin was treated for wanting nothing more than to serve the country. And you are right that it is our nations loss if libertarian/conservative mothers are kept out of politics after watching how this witch hunt went down.

Posted by: Tman at July 14, 2009 1:27 PM

"Sure we can mock the Obamas nappy head brats"

Breathlessly awaiting Crank's defense of this racist coding.

Posted by: seth soothsayer at July 14, 2009 1:28 PM

Crank,

Your lefty trolls are some seriously sick people. Pardon the redundancy.

Posted by: stan at July 14, 2009 1:33 PM

That's not "coding." It's the genuine article.

We're not the Left. I'm not going to tolerate that here.

Posted by: Crank at July 14, 2009 1:34 PM

BTW seth, I did not *defend* McCain & Rush cracking on Chelsea. My point was they were the exception not the rule, and in both cases they - unlike the bulk of the Palin critics - had the decency to recognize when they'd gone too far and apologize.

Posted by: Crank at July 14, 2009 1:35 PM

wait, wait wait......didn't Palin make her major national debut as a hockey mom, barracuda, AND pit-bull. Two out of three of those self imposed monikers can be safely categorized as visicous and attacking. She got in the ring right? She threw the gloves off right? She claimed a higher moral base (I live in a City and supposedly don't have "small town values" through I grew up in a small town) she picked the fight right? she involved her kids when convienient then called foul when involment of her family was not convienient? She ran for VP, was basically unknown and did a good job of rallying a small base at the expense of not rallying a potenially larger base.

Anyway was Hillary subjected to the same abuse, how about Kay Hutchins (who should have been McCain's VP selection).

What Im trying to say is that I wouldn't be so quick to play the victim-hood card here. It's tired and so is all the drama about Palin.

Posted by: ben at July 14, 2009 1:37 PM

The phrases "intellectually incurious" and "not well read", and their variations, are repeated by the Leftists and the MSM (but I repeat myself) in the hope that the sheer repetition will, in Göbbelslich fashion, create the popular perception that it's true.

Posted by: The Monster at July 14, 2009 1:37 PM

"That's not "coding." It's the genuine article.

We're not the Left. I'm not going to tolerate that here"

Ok your shot to the Left aside I respect you calling it out.

Posted by: seth soothsayer at July 14, 2009 1:38 PM

Beautifully compiled, powerfully stated, and all in one place. A nice first draft for the honest historians of the future. Thank you.

Posted by: Jude at July 14, 2009 1:41 PM

The hazing of public figures(Sarah Palin the latest) and their families doesnt make you right, or wrong. It makes you petty. Its the same as those who fault Obama, not the policies.
Obama may be a nice guy, hes a good dad, and hes personable. I just disagree with his policies. Doesnt make me a villain, doesnt make him one either.
People have become pundits, unwilling to debate calmly and HONESTLY. Until our behavior changes were gonna be chasing some decent folk, who would make fine public servants, out of the game for the current lot we choose.
So before you make a snarky snide comment, ask yourself, How does this benefit anyone, anywhere, in anyway?

Posted by: eric at July 14, 2009 1:44 PM

What an AMAZINGLY well-written and thoroughly researched post.

Wow. Just wow. I've never seen your blog, came over from HotAir ... and wow.

You're good. Way good. This is better than pretty much everything on the Internet and better than 95% of stuff in the mainstream media.

Wow.

Posted by: PB at July 14, 2009 1:44 PM

"Sarahcuda" and "pit bull" mean it's okay to attack her kids. See, folks, it's called logic.

Posted by: neb at July 14, 2009 1:45 PM

False analogy, Jarjar. We currently are in a situation where our President (still on his world-apology tour) -doesn't- "stand up to terrorists".

Also helps him that the media for the most part is his cheerleading and "damage control" for every word or action he produces or dreams up, no matter how cockamamie.

The mainstream media has been pretty good at dishing out the hypocrisy as well, trashing right-wing message boards for a few intemperate and over-the-top comments by its posters about a First Daughter's fashion sense while they take their queues and news reporting queues from rancorous, bigoted, intolerant trash-bloggers who continue to defame Palin and her kids (and Alaskans as a whole!) with falsehoods of their all being white trash in-bred unethical, power-mad, money-grubbing hillbillies who have the bad taste not to abort their children at the drop of a hat.

So spare us all your implications about what President Obama has to "put up with" in the media vs. the disgusting attacks on Sarah Palin and her children.

Posted by: Nan Sequitur at July 14, 2009 1:45 PM

"...deathly unpopular with her fellow Republicans..." Do you really believe that Seth Soothsayer? It is precisely because she IS so popular with her fellow Republicans and conservatives that the left and democrats unleashed unprecedented, vicious, sleazy and malignant attacks on this woman and her family. They are scared to death of her and what her continued presence on the national political stage will mean for the Dems/leftists....therefore...destroy destroy destroy. But have no fear, Sarah Palin is not gone. Her op-ed piece in the WaPo today proves that. She will be around for a long time tormenting the left...only now she is a common citizen and the attacks may start to appear unseemingly...even to Democrats and leftists. But that last bit is pure optimism on my part as there is no cure for rabid dogs.

Posted by: Sirius at July 14, 2009 1:45 PM

Sirius, I believe she remains very popular with Republicans overall, but it is a fact that she returned to Alaska after the election with depleted political capital among her Republican colleagues. They sabotaged her pipeline play, her AG nomination. They have made ethics challenges.

I dont think she's gone. I think she's cashing in and will be omnipresent. I just wish you conservatives would have the honesty to admit the cashing in part.

Obama remains the public figure who came out most forcefully and quickly against the focus upon Palin's family in the media. I'd like to see you conservatives admit that.

And finally I'd like to see you admit that her children were consciously employed by her and the McCain campaign as part of her political appeal -- she is family oriented, against abortion, willing to have a disabled child late in life etc etc, with the implication being that perhaps the other side's party is more interested in screwing interns. So a media focus upon whether or not she's permitting her teenage daughter to have sex, or is oblivious to it, becomes absolute fair game.

Posted by: seth soothsayer at July 14, 2009 1:53 PM

"her children were consciously employed by her and the McCain campaign as part of her political appeal"

Consciously employed? Because they appeared on stage after a speech or two?

Jesus man get a grip. Michelle Obama literally CAMPAIGNED AND GAVE SPEECHES for Barack and when the right criticized her for her "I'm finally proud of my country" comment, the left went apeshit saying she was off limits.

You guys are trying to justify "going after" a teenage daughter who is dealing with some serious life issues.

What you don't understand is there isn't any justification for it. And this is why the left has become morally bankrupt. You simply lost your compass and don't even realize how insane you sound.

Posted by: Tman at July 14, 2009 2:03 PM

Great post. This is the best single summation of all that's been thrown Gov. Palin's way I've read yet. Esp. the added observations of the Chicago/Rahm system: that re-iteration everywhere of the same points, even to the same phrasing, practically within the same news cycle, we've all seen: from YouTube comments, to Matt Damon's mouth, to TV personalities at news desks, from "FranktheTank" and his cohort, saturating everywhere, is the evidence of a 24/7 machine at work. Maybe that's why the West Wing people are soooo weary---all those late nights coming up with tomorrow's phrase.
Pres. Obama said little as a campaigner, and says nothing now, to stop the attacks. Probably because he is still campaigning; after all, the last Presidential campaign started what--- 3 yrs?---before the conventions? And what does "intellectually curious" mean to the American people? The media already said in about a hundred ways that she's dumb as a brick: do they need to come up with new ways to keep hammering it into us? "Intellectually curious" is not the equal of "effective leadership", "charismatic personality", "authenticity", or even simple humanity. Her history is a target for jokes, while the President's is sacrosanct. Palin became the campaign star of 2008. The Dems wanted to destroy her early, to cut her down, to warn her how bad it could get, either to tick her off enough to make a bad move, or to step up her efforts so they have more opportunity to denigrate the Party through her. I think it's also why no other significant Republican has come forward---he/she will be making themselves a target for the forseeable future. If I were them I wouldn't hire any 'loyal' help like the ex-McCain staffers, either.
Catherine, I'm with you. Whatever she decides in the near future, I'm looking forward to it. Palin is a bright spot of humanity in a dreary political landscape.

Posted by: maureen at July 14, 2009 2:04 PM

Good post.

A simple rule to remember: Any act done by a politician w/ a "D" behind the name is
a) none of your business
b) a moment of human fraility
c) misunderstanding
d) stems from the deep, personal desire to serve the people, and that's what I'm going to continue to do.

If you can actually find the "D" in press reports. Otherwise, you can play the wildly popular game, "Guess Their Party Affiliation". Which, of course, really isn't a game b/c you know when a pubbie goes of course by the headline. "Greedy, Heartless Republican Kills Mosquito With Super Gas Guzzling SUV".

In other news reports you will have to really strain to find out. Of course, you already know the answer.

Posted by: GW McLintock at July 14, 2009 2:14 PM

No Magrooder it is hapless rubes like yourself who are the gift that keeps on giving.People who can be manipulated and brainwashed easily are the shysters best friend and permanent meal ticket. I have a great mortgage deal coupled with a reliable used car and some vacation property that is tailor made for chumps like you. What's your social security number while I have you on the phone....

Posted by: Jay at July 14, 2009 2:16 PM

You caught about 25% of the reason, Crank, which is surprising, you're usually much more perceptive.
The DNC's Alaska branch, whose effort began with the 'Troopergate investigation, and the dozen other complaints are not an accident. in fact one of the officials, Kim Elton, was rewarded with a job in Obama's Interior Department overseeing Alaska.
One of Axelrod's associates, a Mr. Winner, directed
a good deal of the astroturfing stream of lies that emerged on the internet. A good deal of many of those comments referred to in the Vanity Fair or
NY Times piece, come from anonymous or possibly
sources that don't exist. That isn't an accident. Levi
Johnson, was allowed to jet off with his indicted oxycontin dealing mother to various venuesbecause
of a inobservant judge overseeing the caseand their attorney, the Alaskan version of Al Sharpton. There was a campaign to torpedo her signal achievement, the AGIA line by officials who had a financial interest in the competing line

Posted by: narciso at July 14, 2009 2:17 PM

If you're a politician and you don't lock your kids in the basement while you're campaigning, your enemies can say whatever they want and it's fair game.

Unless you're a Democrat.

Posted by: sloth slopslinger at July 14, 2009 2:18 PM

P.S. "Forcefully"? If that's your idea of force, no wonder the rest of the world is laughing at us behind our backs.

Posted by: sloth slopslinger at July 14, 2009 2:23 PM

"absolutely everything is fair game to make sure that person never gets a significant amount of power."

[snip]

"I'm proud to be "scum of the earth" if it means I was part of a movement that made a right-wing religious nut run away in terror."

One thing Sarah Palin is able to do is inspire lefties to let their masks slip and reveal the revolting, soulless, ugliness beneath.

"Ansolutely everything is fair"? "Proud to be scum"? True Nazis inside.

Posted by: Extraneus at July 14, 2009 2:33 PM

Leaving aside that Sarah Palin is an under-educated, non-thinking imbecile who routinely makes up stories about herself, her career and her rationale for acting or failing to act, let’s take her at face value. Moreover, though the evidence assembled by Crank is thin – mostly either far-left crank-pots, those with tiny audiences, or National Enquirer-type publications – let’s assume that attacks on her family were beyond the pale.

First, because they are an attractive group and they help her appeal to her base, Palin made her family front and center from the time she was introduced to the country as McCain’s running mate. That fact alone would not justify truly abhorrent attacks on children, but Palin didn’t leave it there. Crank references the “family vote” before Palin resigned; it was reminiscent of the “family vote” Palin claimed occurred before agreeing to run for VP. One problem, of course, is the first claimed vote NEVER HAPPENED. Both Sarah and Todd gave conflicting stories about the timeline as she secretly met McCain and then flew to Ohio for the announcement. UNDER EITHER chronology, the family vote could not have occurred. Even if it had occurred – and, again, it could not have – Palin reaffirmed her family’s active role in her decisionmaking. Why tell the story if you want to protect your family? Once it is told, however, it is fair game to inquire the scope of “family involvement” in her decisionmaking process. (Wouldn’t the country have been better served if we had known the extent to which Nancy Reagan’s astrologer determined President Reagan’s schedule?)

Crank further complains about the inquiries into Trig’s parenthood. The initial stories did suggest that Bristol was the mother, but two things made that a reasonable inquiry – Palin hid her pregnancy and Bristol was, in fact, pregnant. This led to a fact that would have been revealed shortly anyway; namely, Bristol’s unwed pregnancy. Then the focus on Trig, particularly by Andrew Sullivan, has been on the utterly ludicrous story Palin told about the hours before his birth. As told by Palin, the story shows action on her part that was, at best, utterly reckless for a woman with a high risk pregnancy. She frequently asserted that the “whole Story” had been told, when in fact she answered none of the questions regarding the timeline she had publicized. In the end, these stories were about Palin and not Trig. Throughout his pursuit of the facts, Sullivan has consistently praised Palin for giving birth to Trig. Finally, Palin used the Trig story to connect with her religious right base.

The Palin’s can’t seem to decide whether Bristol should avoid being in the public eye to concentrate on motherhood or be a spokesperson for abstinence (what is the slogan? Do as I say, not as I do?). Greta Van Susteren practically lives at their house. And, Bristol herself, sought out Fox to do an interview with her on motherhood after the election! If the Palin’s wanted to tone down the focus on the children, wouldn’t it have been a good idea to keep them from giving interviews? Perhaps they took a family vote and the kids decided, “hell yeah, we like being on TV.” A significant amount of the recent coverage of Bristol has been because Levi and his family have been available to the media. Again, Palin bears some of the blame for this, having trotted him out as son-in-law to be. Once that genie was out of the bottle, it’s tough to get it back in. (Also, the way the Palin machine has attacked the kid, I can’t blame him for trying, however incompetently, to defend himself.)

Too frequently, like with the Letterman episode, Palin makes things worse by responding. Letterman’s audience is not that big, but Palin kept the story on the front page for days by going after him, giving him both ammunition and opportunity to keep the story alive on his terms. As for the ethics complaints, the two primary ones resulted in Palin having to pay taxes that she owed for her per diems and the finding that she abused her authority in seeking to have her former brother-in-law fired. By definition, not frivolous. Her legal bills are being covered by her defense fund; she will have no out-of-pocket cost and most of the state money she claims was wasted resulted from the investigation of herself that SHE called for.

Having commented before on Crank’s crocodile tears for the poor conservatives who just don’t have the stomach to take on those mean left-wing bloggers, the history of how the “politics of personal destruction” started and developed in the 80’s by Atwater and his ilk is sufficient response. Palin should return to the obscurity from which she came, utterly and completely unqualified to serve as a political leader. The op-ed in today’s Washington Post – which, no doubt, she wrote herself – signals that she does not intend to go away. Like Dick Nixon, we’ll have her to kick around for years to come.

Posted by: Magrooder at July 14, 2009 2:44 PM

But.......she isn't going away.
Just look. Palin op-ed

Since she lied about going away, does that mean she doesn't care about her children anymore?
im confused.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at July 14, 2009 2:45 PM

Leaving aside that I'm an under-educated, non-thinking imbecile who routinely makes up stories about other people, I'm in love with the sound of my own keyboard. Which is apparently very old.

Posted by: Magdoofus at July 14, 2009 2:50 PM

Intellectually curious? If Obama's got it, can it really be that good as he continues to jam the accelerator as the economy goes over a cliff? Maybe he should trade in 'intellectually curious' for 'common sense'?

Posted by: EBJ at July 14, 2009 2:58 PM

Obamas kids are fair game to jokes and insults. Liberals better get use to it. Ya all should have knocked it off. Now it is payback because we see it bugs the hell out of you.

Posted by: Barbara at July 14, 2009 3:00 PM

"Like Dick Nixon, we’ll have her to kick around for years to come."

Magrooder = not a history major

So a politician putting their kids on TV allows their political enemies to call their kids whores and worse. So how come Obama's kids haven't been hit after O put them on E?

Posted by: EBJ at July 14, 2009 3:05 PM

"So a media focus upon whether or not she's permitting her teenage daughter to have sex, or is oblivious to it, becomes absolute fair game."
Posted by: seth soothsayer at July 14, 2009 1:53 PM

A discussion of teenage pregnancy / abstinence / condoms in school would most definitely have been appropriate.

Major media outlets reporting DISGUSTING RUMORS that Trig was not Sarah's son but her grandson, was inexplicable and unprecedented, not to mention all of the other unfounded rumors that were reported first and investigated later (proving the allegations false) after the damage had already been done.

Have you seen the pictures some journalist in Alaska manipulated of Trig to make him look like an evil troll? Is that in bounds simply because Palin, like EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE, including Obama, puts family out there on the campaign trail? I think not. And I would hope that you would agree. I would find it just as despicable if something like that were done to Obama's children.

Yes, Obama himself said that families were out of bounds, as he should have. But I still remember some of his talking head campaign advisors and spokesmen playing the trash Sarah and her family game.

You betcha Sarah is cashing in. Why not? Why should she continue to face mounting legal bills because some politically motivated hacks are continously bombarding her with false charges simply because they are afraid to debate her on policy/ideology. Such leftists understand that they cannot win in truth and debate and instead must smear, defame, and file frivolous erroneous lawsuits in order to "win".

Posted by: MississippiMom at July 14, 2009 3:05 PM

The thing that fascinates me on the few occasions when this happens is the number of people that must be typing "Sarah Palin" or whatever (I can't remember the topic the last time there were all of a sudden an incredible number of comments in a very brief period of time from non-regulars) into some search engine on a daily basis. I guess I have a hard time conceptualizing that activity in those numbers.

Posted by: jim at July 14, 2009 3:06 PM

jim, FYI, this post was linked at HotAir, which sends a lot of traffic. Like, thousands and thousands (for which I am grateful to Allahpundit). That's why there's a lot more activity than just the regulars in the comments.

Posted by: Crank at July 14, 2009 3:19 PM

Hey Crank,
I am grateful that Hot Air linked you. Your site has just been added to my home page list. Wonderfully thorough and thoughtful analysis.
THANKS!

Posted by: MississippiMom at July 14, 2009 3:25 PM

So, if you politically disagree with someone "anything is fair" "any means necessary to beat them" and you should be "proud" of viciously attacking their children?

I guess Liberals really are the kind, thoughtful, tolerant, and inclusive party after all. I mean what child wouldn't like to be attacked for his/her mother's political viewpoint?

"The initial stories did suggest that Bristol was the mother, but two things made that a reasonable inquiry – Palin hid her pregnancy and Bristol was, in fact, pregnant."

So MacGrooder, the reason it was reasonable to ask if Trig was Bristol's kid, was that Bristol was pregnant? Can I recommend a biology course? I've not heard a lot of reports of siblings being born 8 months apart... or of a pregnant woman getting pregnant again before giving birth... but clearly you are a better scientist than I.

How many children can a woman carry separately with separate conceptions and separate birth/due dates? I'm not exactly familiar with this ability; but I'm mired in science and reality, not liberalism.

So, in your world; how many babies can a woman hold simultaneously from different conceptions? Oh, and what color is the sky in that world?

Posted by: Gekkobear at July 14, 2009 3:40 PM

Hard to tell if it's the topic or the influx that makes for a whole different level of nastiness than normally is played out here in a (frequently) I know you, you know me sort of way. Makes for interesting reading even if I don't find the topic that interesting.

Posted by: jim at July 14, 2009 3:48 PM

Ya know, I'm almost to the point where the depth of the bigotry displayed by lefties has stopped shocking me.

Almost.

"People" like Magrooder are disgusting. They make me wonder how long before the Democrats get back to their white hooded sheets and "night riding".

Posted by: Rob Crawford at July 14, 2009 3:51 PM

If nothing else, Palin's like the hot white light of truth, revealing lefties for the bitter, hateful scum they are.

She's not going away, either. I think she's running for president.

You Palin-haters may want to start taking her seriously, or before you know it, she'll be beating you up and taking your lunch money. Like that other well-known moron, GW Bush.

Even monkeys can learn, but I gotta wonder about you lefties.

Posted by: tsj017 at July 14, 2009 3:54 PM

My lefty International Relations teacher used to say, "You can have any opinion you wish as long as it is the same opinion I have. Otherwise, you leave yourself open to ridicule and destruction."

Posted by: maryo at July 14, 2009 3:58 PM

Crank - excellent analysis. Says most of what I've thought about the double-standard in MSM and "open-minded" left.

I'll throw one more. The Democrats like to play class warfare, positioning themselves as the defenders of the middle class against the "wealthy Republicans." Yet, now we have among the high profile politicians the closest to middle class in Sarah Palin. And the Democrats do everything they can to bankrupt her as means of keeping her from running.

Posted by: Chris Graham at July 14, 2009 4:03 PM

Seth says…
“And finally I'd like to see you admit that her children were consciously employed by her and the McCain campaign as part of her political appeal -- she is family oriented, against abortion, willing to have a disabled child late in life etc etc, with the implication being that perhaps the other side's party is more interested in screwing interns. So a media focus upon whether or not she's permitting her teenage daughter to have sex, or is oblivious to it, becomes absolute fair game.”

No – that makes her views and family devotion fair game. Not the children themselves.

Posted by: Chris Graham at July 14, 2009 4:03 PM

Gekkobear,

Bristol's pregnancy was proof that she was sexually active, so could have had Trig. Again, the initial story about the identity of the mother quickly gave way to the oddity of Palin's tale of Trig's birth. Pursuing what really happened instead of swallowing whole Plain's story was, and is, legitimate.

EBJ,

Obama immediately realized that going on E was a mistake and it is one he did not repeat, helping to shelter his children. The Palins, by contrast, sought out publicity for Bristol with the whole abstinence advocacy thing.

Posted by: Magrooder at July 14, 2009 4:07 PM

No one could have predicted (TM) that a Conservative would play the victim card when things didn't go their way.

BTW, Palin said she was from the "real America". The one where they have very, very few minorities.
That's why she, like the GOP, is dead in national elections unless they turn the clock back to the 1800s. Don't worry. They'll try.

Posted by: Berto at July 14, 2009 4:09 PM

Most politicians tout themselves as family men. They show off the wife and kids...how freaking many articles have we had lately about Obama taking his kids on foreign trips and to get ice cream, etc.?

That opens the door just a crack, sure, to talking about him as a father. But it opens it for nearly everyone. Do we really want to use that as the rationalization for making it open season on politicians' families?

The real issue is that she's a woman, and she spent time in her life as a stay at home mom. And, frankly, that the Left has spent years arguing ad hominem against male pro-lifers ("you don't know what it's like to be pregnant"), and was threatened to its core by a female pro-lifer who had walked the walk of an unexpected pregnancy with a disabled child.

Do you really want to argue that discussing Palin's life experiences as a mother makes her children fair game for personal attacks? I guess you do. You don't even begin to consider how that sounds to women.

Posted by: Crank at July 14, 2009 4:10 PM

Enough with the "liberals are easily manipulated" talk.
Especially from a group of people too shallow to realize the ones starting the Iraq War were lined-up to financially profit from it.

Posted by: Berto at July 14, 2009 4:11 PM

What's the point in holding any office if you can only spend time responding to ethics complaints? It sure looks like that was the primary reason to leave, and all the rest was just added reason.

Also, if she's doing it for the children, isn't that the ultimately perfect reason for everything and anything?

Posted by: Terry at July 14, 2009 4:18 PM

Palin should leave the public arena "for the children" The millions of them she's trying to confuse with her abstinence message.

As for your piece, I agree with you Crank. Her kids shouldn't be part of her story. Her lies throughout the election cycle and her attack message coming from a dimwit should suffice in making her a laughing stock.

Posted by: Berto at July 14, 2009 4:24 PM

I wouldn't normally comment, but damn.

Never have I see so many leftwingers so eager to show how PROUD they are to be utter filth.

My whole family, evenly republican and democrat, are now firmly Palin fans,

How many mom's are seeing this, republican and democrat, and quietly hating you and deciding she's got their vote? You folks are doing this because you think it's like robbing banks for free, no consequences at all... well no, remember action equals opposite and equal reaction?

There is always a counter reaction,.

for every one person who tells you online how much you offend decency with your nazi tactics, how many are lurkers..

very quietly, on kitten paws, hating your living guts?

also very quietly with little or no comment, deciding to slip it in between the 5th and 6th ribs and break it off come election day?

My wife was always a faithful democrat, but after this, she sees how Obamabots treat a woman when it suits them. I didn't convert her to the GOP, you Palin haters did, and how many more?

Posted by: Mark d e at July 14, 2009 4:28 PM

When will we see a story about how Obama's mother was 18 and unmarried when she conceived him?

Posted by: maryo at July 14, 2009 4:44 PM

Conservatives should take the depth and breadth of the Palin attacks as a compliment. Democrats learned, in part, that to win presidential elections they have to emulate Atwater and Rover. Conservatives are really crying about getting beaten at their own game. That's all this is.

She pretenses to be president of the United States and was an unknown. The resulting media frenzy was absolutely predictable and justified, and you didn't see conservatives crying about the media frenzy when they got their Convention bump as a result. It's only when she started blowing the interviews that the "media conspiracy" started.

Posted by: robert at July 14, 2009 4:44 PM

Crank, it is not that Palin's life experiences as a mother make her children fair game. It is the way she used both those life experiences and the children to make political arguments and to support her agenda.

There is no doubt that the blogosphere used intemperate and inappropriate language at times. Moreover, except for Letterman's joke (which was intended to be referring to Bristol), the younger children were mostly left alone, as was Track. (God, those names!?!?!?) Bristol bore the brunt of the attention. Palin made the choice to run for VP. Was that really in the best interest of her pregnant, unwed teenage daughter?

I think you are wrong about how women view what has happened to Palin, at least the women with whom I've spoken. Placing all the responsibility on the "left-wing media" makes a convenient fairy tale for Sarah, but the vast majority of the country understands that she made this choice for her own personal benefit, and nothing else.

Posted by: Magrooder at July 14, 2009 4:47 PM

"You Palin-haters may want to start taking her seriously..."

Oh, they've been doing that since Day One. Unlike Republicans, they know exactly who to fear. Problem is, they don't know what to do about her. Hence, the ugliness, which was unleashed by 0bama himself with the "lipstick on a pig" comment.

Posted by: Extraneus at July 14, 2009 4:49 PM

Mark d e,
If Palin playing the victim card kills the Democratic Party, more power to her. She's already working on killing the Republican Party. if she kills them both, I'll be a Palin fan too. I just wouldn't want her anywhere near a powerful government job in any capacity.

Posted by: Berto at July 14, 2009 4:49 PM

I want to hear about Obama's pregnant and unwed teenage mother!

Posted by: maryo at July 14, 2009 4:50 PM

Crank, great job as always!!! The answer to this is very simple, the dims FEAR Sara Palin...and they should.

Posted by: maddirishman at July 14, 2009 4:54 PM

Crank,
Maybe those left-wing bloggers who made mean-spirited jokes about Palin's kids are lining themselves up for bigger futures. After all, Republicans who made mean-spirited jokes about Chelsea Clinton saw themselves become Presidential nominees (McCain) and the head of the Republican party (Limbaugh).

Posted by: Berto at July 14, 2009 5:11 PM

Berto..

"BTW, Palin said she was from the "real America". The one where they have very, very few minorities.

Nice wording, making it seem that the part,..."The one where they have very, very few minorities." .. were her words, rather than, yours. Typical, trying to read into a line words that were never spoken by her.

Must keep those potential independents scared of her huh Bert?

Heavan forbid her words meant what the dictionary says they mean, then how would you be able to decode the super secret republican coding program? If you had to stick to what they actually said and use the real defintions?

must be hard for you Berto, working to decode what anyone else would see as a praise small town America line into a racist screed, must really suck to be so constrained by things like actual meanings when you have a mission to indoctrinate by misdirection. So difficult to bend and warp a call complimenting small town values into a secret message calling for the return of Jim Crow.

really hard if they discover Jim Crow was entirely a democrat party made system, and that Bull Connor, was a democrat as were all the major opponents of civil rights. Tough as Hell when they read too that the klan was the provisional armed wing of the southern democrat party that murdered republicans as often as African Americans... best you leave that out, huh Bert....

Mustn't let truth or meaning into the words of republicans,. it might show that the party that keeps back African Americans since reconstruction, is the same party holding them back now.

Posted by: Mark d e at July 14, 2009 5:51 PM

Got to say, while there is general disagreement on this blog about philosophies, people, etc. the level of nastiness took a real, noticeable turn for the ugly here today and I would have to say largely by people whom I don't recognize and, mostly, are self-identifying as conservative. So, as a quasi-liberal (very much so socially, less so fiscally) apparently I am filth, scum, a reject of nature, bigoted, racist, sick and, by inference, dumber than a monkey (which, may or may not, be a good thing). This is really ugly. If this were my blog I wouldn't want this public commentary on here as a matter of historical record. I'd close it and ditch it.

Posted by: jim at July 14, 2009 6:03 PM

jim, the level of anger is directly proportional to the subject matter.

Posted by: Crank at July 14, 2009 6:28 PM

So, as a quasi-liberal (very much so socially, less so fiscally) apparently I am filth, scum, a reject of nature, bigoted, racist, sick and, by inference, dumber than a monkey (which, may or may not, be a good thing).

Yes, you are. It was your side that went after Palin's children. It was you who called for her rape. It was you that said her son should have been murdered.

A civil war is within sight, and we will wreak a horrible vengeance. I realize that you probably think you're a badass, not having all that God baggage to hold you back from rape and murder. However, you will be surprised to find out what decent people can do when armed.

You made one hell of a big mistake not going after our firearms, sucker. (And you can take that last word any way you like).

Posted by: Ken at July 14, 2009 6:46 PM

Mark d e,
Make believe that isn't what Palin meant if you want.
Republican voters--trained to hear the dog whistle--heard her loud and clear.
Also, during your delusional diatribe, you forgot to mention Lee Atwater and Karl Rove came up with and supported the Southern Strategy. They're Democrats, right?
I'm glad you're there to point out how diabolically racist Democrats are, while the GOP is above race-baiting. Why the Dems even nominated and voted en masse for America's first minority President. Is there anything Democrats won't do to keep minorities in their place? Next thing you know, they'll support a latina for the Supreme Court just to keep their master white race on top.
Hey, if Rush told you so, who are you to argue?

Posted by: Berto at July 14, 2009 7:08 PM

Thanks Ken. I think we all just learned enough about you in that one statement to take anything you have to say with no regard.

Posted by: jim at July 14, 2009 7:31 PM

Not once, not a single time, did I say that Palin's kids were fair game for jokes, undue media scrutiny , anything of the sort. Palin on the other hand is fair game.

Posted by: seth soothsayer at July 14, 2009 7:45 PM

"two daughters is an absolute no-no."
http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Conservative+Free+Republic+blog+free+speech+flap+after+racial+slurs+directed+Obama+children/1782375/story.html

Free Republic posters used the words 'A typical street whore' and 'Ghetto street trash' and worse. I haven't seen any prominent conservative site rage over this, the dual hit of attacking preteens and racism. Why? Who knows. I'll go with the easy answer of not hitting your own.

"it had no basis in fact, but who cares?"
Hold on, I need to see how many Birthers are still around. And aren't you very close to being a Booker too?
I think we all know facts don't matter, it's just a matter of how you can smear an opponent. As McCain 2000. Or about a whitey tape. Or about...

Lastly - I wish her oldest daughter had never posed for the magazines, with her child, for a fee. Or gone on the morning talk shows, dunno if there was a fee then(paid or only volunteer spokesman? don't know, don't care). It took her from someone who should have been only defended and made her into a willing public figure.
An interview involving the children, I don't care about. Having them up on stage, also don't care about. First ladies have always been somewhat public about their side causes.

"we're a smaller, meaner nation for it."
Where have you been for the last 10 years? We could make steps away from this by not having people intentionally misrepresent what is obvious, but that alone is a hard leap.
Remember the RedState post about Obama's Star Trek screening? 'psychotic view of my own superiority', over a private movie screening, done for over 50 years.

The fact is, no one cares about not being meaner. They only care about their laundry winning.

Posted by: Dave at July 14, 2009 8:14 PM

Wow Crank,

Funny thing these are things she never mentioned in her rambling diatribe on why she quit. It is good to see it has taken you so long to find the victim card for her. Did some take unfair shots are her, yes. But ask yourself as an example with the Letterman flap. What is the rule when a comedian takes a cheap shot at you? You take the high and keep your complaint simple, you do not over react to draw more attention. At times Palin put her family out there. Her daughter was on the abstinence beat and on the cover of people magazine. How did that happen?

Face it she paid more attention to her national image than the local agenda and the chickens came home to roost.

During the Clinton years Hillary was constantly called a Lesbian and Chelsea was always referred to as ugly. Anyone who knows anything about teenage girls know they have tons of self confidence issues so to constantly call Chelsea ugly, hmmm never mind.

Also, you seem to never address the logic in her reasons for stepping down "lame Duck" and what is best for Alaska. How about the leaked memos where she asked the McCain folks to lie about her husbands involvement in the AIP. Maybe this one, the millions spent on the lawsuits when the State said the money and time was already allocated. So, in short put away the victim card, Palin tried to have it both ways but quit to get her pot of gold.

I am disappointed in you Crank, you never address any facts in your long delayed post only things to rally the victim card. She did quite a few things to cause her own problems.

Posted by: javaman at July 14, 2009 8:28 PM

To the more liberal commenters posting here:

It's fine if you want to post counter arguments, but I'm having an awful tough time clicking all the links that aren't in your post that you don't use to cite facts.

Additionally, I just can't believe some of you are defending the practice of going after politicians' families. I don't think such actions are good for either side or for the citizens who desire higher quality people as politicians.

On the other hand, if the Republicans avoid going after politicians' children and the Democrats are all for it, well, the Democrats kinda win the prisoners' dilemma there, don't they? Because maybe to them it's not about having good people to lead the country, but rather having power.

I do hope Republicans avoid the Democrats' tactics of the past 8-9 years while they were out of power. It would be a shame to have two completely worthless parties to choose from, although we're heading that way now.

Posted by: DKH at July 14, 2009 8:50 PM

Ken,

Whatever you do, get back on your meds as soon as possible.

To the rest of the libs commenting here,

Enjoy watching the Palinistas squirm as their queen goes down. Just continue to hope that she continues not to get it because she is the best thing that could happen to the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Magrooder at July 14, 2009 9:21 PM

DKH,
You've had this "shame" for the last 30 years.
Also, you should have been alive during the 90s. Ask someone who was alive during the decade to explain what the GOP was up to. Ask them about the accusations of murder by the President's wife, in particular.

Posted by: Berto at July 14, 2009 9:24 PM

Yo Crank,

You are a bum wipe extraordinaire.

The quote you used from Time was from an unflattering article that painted Palin as a short-sighted, stupid, paranoid idiot. Well, we already knew that. The article was only slightly less damning than the Vanity Fair piece.

This bimbo has only herself to blame for her woes. Once again, you are unable to see beyond your standard issue party line. Lemming...

Posted by: Fock Choy at July 14, 2009 9:35 PM

For those who think that Sarah Palin should be President, I'm curious what you think her chances would be. Operate under the assumption that, because these things are cyclical, the economy will almost certainly be in better shape in 2012 than it was in 2008 and that people will give Obama more credit than he probably deserves for the improvement.

She can no longer claim bipartisan support in Alaska. She might not even be able to claim Republican support from her home state. Fairly or not, she is largely thought of as an idiot outside of the far right base. And her popularity has gone nowhere but down since her first few weeks on the national scene. And now she has the added baggage of being thought of as a quitter by many folks.

So again I ask those of you who support Palin: What percentage chance do you think she has of beating Obama in 2012?

Posted by: Frank the Tank at July 14, 2009 9:50 PM

I don't see eye-to-eye with Palin much on issues, and I think since the end of the campaign she's shown that she really is not up to being a candidate for higher office. But I do agree with the main post about the attacks on her family.

Posted by: Jerry at July 14, 2009 10:19 PM

Keep in mind also that the Democrats burned down Palin's church, and intended to kill the people inside.

I'm not going to advocate murder--but if any of you feel an irresistible urge to do a Virginia Tech, might I suggest the local ACORN office? That will keep innocents from being killed.

Posted by: Ken at July 15, 2009 12:30 AM

"False analogy, Jarjar. We currently are in a situation where our President (still on his world-apology tour) -doesn't- "stand up to terrorists".

Posted by: Nan Sequitur at July 14, 2009 1:45 PM"

What does that have to do with the fact that Palin can't even stand up to free speech?

Posted by: jarjar at July 15, 2009 1:05 AM

To All Our Friends On The Left,

All your name calling, insults and continuing attacks on Sarah Palin and her family (and obtw: she is not the first politician to trot out her family...that is routine...what is extraordinary is the unprecedented and vitriolic reaction from the left and the MSM) does not change the facts on the ground.

Those are:
- 62 mil Americans voted for McCain/Palin.
- BObama's approvals are sinking fast
- BObama and the Dem Congress are fundamentally changing this country and there will be a huge backlash.
- Sarah Palin is still on the stage and with a little reading/education on the major issues will be a formidable force.

Deal with it.

Posted by: Sirius at July 15, 2009 9:15 AM

We tried Conservativism with the W Administration. That was an utter failure. (Who knew?)
Now we're trying middle-of-the-road centrism with Obama. If that fails we'll have to give liberals their shot?
I can't wait to see Sirius deal with that.

Posted by: Berto at July 15, 2009 11:51 AM

Berto,

Here's how I deal with it:

1) GW was no conservative
2) BO is no middle-of-the road centrist...not even close.

Regards

Posted by: Sirius at July 15, 2009 12:20 PM

Sirius writes:

"Sarah Palin is still on the stage and with a little reading/education on the major issues will be a formidable force."

What in Sarah Palin's past makes you think she will do any reading or seek out any education on issues?

Posted by: Frank the Tank at July 15, 2009 12:52 PM

Really, Crank? You're going to keep this up with folks like Ken bringing up an incredibly awful event in the history of this country and stating that someone should reproduce the results. Seriously? This is what you are going to let this come to here? At the very least get rid of that guy (Ken).

Ken, by the way, you are dangerously insane.

Posted by: jim at July 15, 2009 12:53 PM

Attacks on the children of politicians are off-base under any circumstances. The children did not choose to be in the media spotlight.

Posted by: MVH at July 15, 2009 1:35 PM

Frank the Tank writes:

"What in Sarah Palin's past makes you think she will do any reading or seek out any education on issues?"

What makes YOU think she won't? She's perfectly well educated on Alaskan issues so why instantly default to the negative?

Posted by: Sirius at July 15, 2009 1:48 PM

Jim, I specifically said I DON'T advocate murder, unlike Whorianna Whorington, who, in addition to sleeping her way to the top, set up hate sites for EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER of the Palin family. The Whorington Post readers living near Palin's church enacted their fantasies by burning down her church, and fully intended to incinerate the Christians inside--and almost succeeded.

Hopefully there won't be any VT's again, but if there are, I would hope they are aimed at the Whorington Post-reading ACORN members rather than at average people who don't believe in rape and murder.

Posted by: Ken at July 15, 2009 2:10 PM

MVH,

As a principle, your assertion that children of public figures do not choose to be in the spotlight should be the default position. But, the behavior of the public official in terms of keeping the children out of the spotlight can and, in some circumstances should, be determinative of how the children are treated.

Mean-spirited personal attacks on children, such as those directed toward Chelsea Clinton and Amy Carter, should always be out of bounds. If, for example, the Clintons had used Chelsea as proof that they were good, responsible parents, inquiries into the facts of Chelsea's upbringing (e.g., did she use drugs, did she get pregnant, DUI, etc.) would be relevant.

I assert again, since no one has attempted to refute it, that only Bristol was subject to scrutiny; the inquiries as to Trig related solely to Palin's absurd claims concerning the hours leading up to his birth. There is no doubt that some in the blogosphere published filth about Bristol. One needs look only at Ken's posts here to see that each side has its lunatics. The lion's share of the blame for what happened to Bristol lies squarely with her mother, who chose her personal ambition over protecting her daughter.

Posted by: Magrooder at July 15, 2009 2:11 PM

Incidentally, why am I singled out as dangerously insane, when your buddy Frank the Yugo is out there happily endorsing physical attacks on Palin and her family?

Posted by: Ken at July 15, 2009 2:22 PM

"Palin's absurd claims concerning the hours leading up to his birth."

Such as the absurd claim that Bristol didn't get pregnant with her second child while she was pregnant with her first. Gotcha, reality-based dude.

Oh, BTW, if you'd read Crank's post, you'd have seen that Paul Hackett did much more than that. He attacked Palin specifically for not murdering Trig in utero. I realize you weirdos love to masturbate to abortion and rape pictorials from HUSTLER, but that doesn't change that you are sick, weird degenerates.

Posted by: Ken at July 15, 2009 2:28 PM

So, onward, did anyone see that pitch by the Tough Democrat from the Streets?

Wow, you know, you'd almost think he wasn't such a big tough guy after all. But then we all know that every Democrat is a swaggering gangsta, and that all Republicans are cowardly accountants. LOL

Posted by: Ken at July 15, 2009 2:34 PM

"if the Clintons had used Chelsea as proof that they were good, responsible parents, inquiries into the facts of Chelsea's upbringing (e.g., did she use drugs, did she get pregnant, DUI, etc.) would be relevant."

So, if the Clinton's had made that claim, would it then be OK for the media to follow the kids around, dive into their past, and then publish any negatives they find? That is unacceptable to me. Besides, kids make mistakes regardless of how good their parents are. You could be a phenomenal parent, and your child can still make poor choices.

It's not worth doing that to a child to score what is essentially a minor political point.

Posted by: MVH at July 15, 2009 2:38 PM

There is actually a very simple solution here. Any GOP politician with a family needs to state right at the beginning:

"If you want to criticize me go ahead. If you want to call me a murderer, rapist, or child molester, go ahead. If you so much as criticize one hair out of place on any of my family members, I WILL COME AFTER YOU PERSONALLY AND PHYSICALLY."

The one problem, of course, is that politicians of both parties are usually physical cowards. Nevertheless, the GOP is going to have to find candidates that aren't and run them.

Posted by: Ken at July 15, 2009 2:43 PM

Sirius wrote:
Here's how I deal with it:

1) GW was no conservative
2) BO is no middle-of-the road centrist...not even close.
------------
A lot of people deal with things by lying to themselves.

Posted by: Berto at July 15, 2009 4:54 PM

Good point about politicians being cowards, Ken. I'd be thrilled if either party found a single candidate that stood up to corporate interests.

Posted by: Berto at July 15, 2009 4:58 PM

Thank you to all the little girly-men on the Right for proving what real men on the Left already knew: You can dish out, but you can't take it. Caribou Barbie has endured 1/2 of 1% percent of the media attacks that Bill Clinton faced (from ridiculous stories of murder binges in AR to $40 million in taxpayer funds for a fruitless Starr Report to months of all Monica, all the time to impeachment for evasiveness about a blow job), and now you you all whine and cry because the shoe is on the other foot.

Here are a few facts to bear in mind:

1) Palin IS ethically challenged; for every frivolous case brought, there's a substantial one, whether it's her flipflopping on the bridge to nowhere, or her $150,000 spent on a campaign wardrobe, or her long list of firings to settle personal scores, or her improper expenditures of state funds for family members.

2) Other than Letterman's tasteless jokes, the media has been kind to Palin's kids. The only coordinated attacks have been re Palin's own hypocrisy, for preaching abstinence and "family values" while allowing her daughter to sleep with and conceive with an unmarried partner.

3) Despite attacks that make Palin's difficulties look like a walk in the park, Bill Clinton honored his responsibility to those who voted him in, and finished his term. Sarah quit.

To those who want to ram Caribou Barbie down our throats in 2012, we say this: Please, please do so. Make her the Repub nominee... please.

Posted by: E. B. at July 15, 2009 7:48 PM

Come down to Reno and we'll see who's the real man, pussy boy.

COME ON B****. I'D LOVE TO MAKE YOU BLEED, C***.

Posted by: Ken at July 15, 2009 10:48 PM

Baseball Crank, can you please, pretty please, post E.B.'s IP address?

Posted by: Ken at July 15, 2009 10:53 PM

Ken, I'm busy. I have other things to do. But the foul language and whatnot is over the line. Please go somewhere else.

Posted by: Crank at July 15, 2009 11:27 PM

Berto wrote:
"A lot of people deal with things by lying to themselves."

That is brilliant Berto - pure genius, Einsteinian in scope and impact. A cogent, succinct, insightful, thought provoking entry, and a dagger to the heart of my position. well done man...you must have been a star debater.

Regards

Posted by: Sirius at July 16, 2009 10:37 AM

Crank,

Great well-researched post with accurate analysis of the situation.

Posters,

Wow, what a bunch of gobbledy gook nonsense. She didn't quit because she was scared. She was unable to do her job as well as possible because of all the BS from the left. She had a top notch Lt. Gov. with similar views on the issues affecting Alaska so there was no down side to his relieving her.

Calling her (or anyone) stupid because they don't share your views does not make them stupid. The left has used that tactic for decades. They continually made the argument that Gore was a genius and Bush was stupid with zero basis in fact. Bush graduated from Yale and got a Masters from Harvard while Gore dropped out of divinity school among other majors. Bush trained on and qualified to fly fighter jets. Gore served as a military journalist. Yet the left managed to paint the one as stupid and the other as a genius. Amazing proof of gullibility. At least Gore was able to use his divinity school training to start a new religion or cult.

For you folks who stooped to gutter language or who excused or were proud of the attacks on Palin here is a word of advice. Before you post anything, stop and think about what your mother would think of your comments. Grow up. Discuss issues and policies like adults.

Posted by: largebill at July 16, 2009 11:53 AM

largebill,
She did ask to have the "Bush Doctrine" explained to her in 2008 when she was running for VP.
You may be right that she isn't stupid. It might have just been an act, but you can't blame people for thinking she's an idiot when she acts like one.

Posted by: Berto at July 16, 2009 6:42 PM

She did ask to have the "Bush Doctrine" explained to her in 2008 when she was running for VP.

I know I shouldn't engage trolls, but it's completely obvious that you were/are incapable of understanding the reason behind her query of the "Bush Doctrine".

The Democrats and the MSM have been distorting the Bush Doctrine for years, creating a whole new meaning that bears no resemblance to the actual Bush Doctrine. Her query was to make the questioner define their interpretation of the Bush Doctrine, to which she could then accurately respond.

While she has had some disappointing media appearances, that particular instance was one of her finest, as she refused to be painted into a corner by a loaded question, where the questioner could reinterpret her meaning to go against her based upon a falsified re-interpretation of the Bush Doctrine.

Posted by: Agent W at July 17, 2009 2:39 PM

Agent W,
That question had been asked of every Presidential candidate in the 2008 election. None of them needed it explained to them before they could answer it. None of them, except for Palin.
Again if she thought she was being cute by playing dumb, can you really fault people for thinking she actually is dumb?

If it makes you feel better, Agent W, her incessant lying throughout the campaign was much worse than her stupidity.

Posted by: Berto at July 17, 2009 4:55 PM

Crank:

It's sad how many people believe anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid or dishonest or evil.

The arrogance of so many of the lefties here is funny & sad both - "Palin's a dope" ....

RIIIIIIGHHHHHTTTT ....

Dopes don't get nominated for or get elected governor.

The "Bush Doctrine" ..... I know people have done this before... Wikipedia's description:

"The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself from countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan."

"Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way."

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT QUOTED AS AUTHORITY ...

but as an example of the many varied aspects of policy which people believe are implicated by the words "Bush Doctrine."

But enough of all this. People who hate - and so many of you are bound and determined to hate - eventually pay the price of their hatred.

So - knock yourselves out.

Posted by: BD57 at July 18, 2009 8:50 PM

"People who hate - and so many of you are bound and determined to hate - eventually pay the price of their hatred."

Yup, and that was why all those white men were trying to stave off the inevitable at the Sotomayer hearings last week.

BTW, OBL used the Bush Doctrine on 9/11/2001.

Posted by: Berto at July 20, 2009 3:25 PM

"Sampled" from RedPlanetCartoons:

What do Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius and Jon Huntsman have in common? All were governors who resigned this year to pursue other opportunities, and did so without a peep of criticism from journalists or their fellow pols for “quitting” on the peoples of Arizona, Kansas and Utah, respectively.

Ms. Napolitano, Ms. Sebelius and Mr. Huntsman weren’t criticized for resigning to pursue other opportunities because the other opportunities they’re pursuing are in government — as secretary of homeland security, secretary of health and human services, and ambassador to China, respectively.

Apparently, the only thing more important than holding public office is seeking a higher one. Barack Obama in effect quit his day job as a U.S. senator (while still drawing his paycheck) for two years in order to seek the presidency. Mr. Obama drew little criticism for this, mostly because what he did was so commonplace. Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain did much the same thing.

Sarah's crime? She is not currently seeking a higher office. The shame of it!

Posted by: Sirius at July 21, 2009 5:48 PM

Sometimes it's really that simple, isn't it? I feel a little stupid for not thinking of this myself/earlier, though.

Posted by: Usenet at July 29, 2009 8:25 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg