March 27th, 2009
Palin, Steele and Other Conservative Christians Not ‘Normal’? More Hypocrisy from ‘Hardball’
By S.E. Cupp
Republican Commentator/Author, “Why You’re Wrong About the Right”
Chris Matthews, along with Lois Romano of the Washington Post and David Corn of Mother Jones, devoted 10 minutes of last night’s “Hardball” to lamenting the religiosity of Republicans.
“Why does everything sound like the 700 Club?” Matthews flippantly probed his like-minded panelists. The criticism came in response to recent sound bites from Sarah Palin and Michael Steele — two very popular go-to targets of the left.
“Suspicious” is a good characterization of the liberal attitude toward Christianity. The media was “suspicious” of Palin throughout the campaign, accusing her of speaking in tongues, and admonishing her for her pro-life position.
Mind you, neither Palin nor Steele were talking about the sinister ways in which they’d like to inject their voodoo brands of religion into the lives of others. Nor were they suggesting that Christianity play a more prominent role in politics writ large. They were simply acknowledging their own faith — how dare they.
Palin told a crowd of friendly Republicans that before her vice presidential debate against Joe Biden, she couldn’t find anyone in the McCain campaign that she wanted to pray with. Politically unwise to air out old grievances against a still-respected Republican senator? Perhaps, but Matthews implied it was some kind of cultish crusade to put a Bible at every bedside. For her admission, Matthews doesn’t think Palin is “normal” — which is exactly the kind of rigorous analysis we have come to expect of the veteran newsman who has hinted at running for office himself.
And Steele, chair of the RNC, told a reporter about his own possible run for office, “God has a way of revealing stuff to you. If that’s part of the plan, it will be the plan.” To this, Romano resoundingly declared, “He’s gone off the reservation.” And Corn said ominously, “Any time someone says ‘I’ll do this if God wants me to,’ I get suspicious.”
“Suspicious” is a good characterization of the liberal attitude toward Christianity. The media was “suspicious” of Palin throughout the campaign, accusing her of speaking in tongues, and admonishing her for her pro-life position. And they were “suspicious” of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for his “extreme Catholicism,” as the Huffington Post called it, after reading a college paper in which he describes an exorcism experiment.
And of course they were “suspicious” of President Bush, who was chided for public admissions of his faith time and again. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman said that his 2005 inaugural address “was the closest thing to a sermon I can remember.”
But the media conveniently ignores that Democrats are religious as well. In fact, 78 percent of this country is Christian, according to the CIA World Factbook. Less than 16 percent say they are not religious. And 48 percent of Democrats say they are “absolutely committed to Christianity.”
A bona fide media darling, President Clinton, wrote in his book “Between Hope and History,”
“I believe the First Amendment does not require students to leave their religion at the schoolhouse door. There is absolutely nothing improper about students wanting to reflect upon their faith. They can express their beliefs in homework, through artwork, and during class presentations, as long as it’s relevant to the assignment. They can form religious clubs in high school.”
If Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee said this, they’d be declared Christian jihadists, or some similarly hysterical and offensive equivalent.
And it’s not entirely without precedent in American politics to synthesize religious doctrine and political agenda. Joe Lieberman delivered a speech to the Christians United for Israel conference in 2007 in which he used his religious beliefs to make an argument for foreign policy:
“By standing with Israel today, each of you has…taken up the torch that was lit in God’s promise to Abraham 4,000 years ago, and carrying it forward to spread that light. I believe that Israel’s rebirth in 1948 was divinely inspired by God.”
Lieberman’s religious acknowledgment was largely ignored by the media — and rightly so. But President Bush, because he’s a Christian, ostensibly, was lambasted for admitting he prays a lot.
But the hypocrisy is particularly magnified in Matthews’ case. Unless we’ve forgotten the bizarre physiological effects then-candidate Obama had on his leg, it’s amusing to consider that he has no problem injecting his politics into his journalism, but Sarah Palin and Michael Steele can’t even acknowledge their religion — because they’re politicians.
Like any conversation about Sarah Palin on MSNBC, the “Hardball” discussion quickly devolved into one about her looks. She was compared to Dan Quayle, who was “also very good-looking,” they said. When Matthews and his cohorts mock 78 percent of the country, and some of its most respected national leaders, is it any wonder his ratings lag significantly behind his competition on FOX and CNN?
*********************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
MSNBC is going down the tubes and lagging behind in the ratings because their reporting is so PREDICTABLE!! Obama is GOOD. NOTHING BAD ABOUT OBAMA. THE ONE, THE MESSIAH, THE ANOINTED ONE does no wrong. Just because conservatives have a strong belief in God, they are put down. WHAT? Because Sarah is a woman and does not believe in Abortion, she's weird, right, Chris? What is wrong with this picture? Truthfully, it is the people who are totally AGAINST ABORTION are the truest Christians, and to consider them weird for their beliefs is disgusting!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
MC CAIN CREDITS SARAH FOR OVER 50 MILLION VOTES!!!
McCain: People voted 'mostly for Sarah Palin' last year
From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart
Speaking at the Heritage Foundation Thursday, Sen. McCain acknowledged the political star power of his former running mate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Former Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has no illusions about the 2008 White House race.
"God bless them," McCain said Thursday at the Heritage Foundation when reminded of the tens of millions of people who voted for him last year.
"Over 50 million people voted for me and Sarah Palin - mostly for Sarah Palin," McCain said to an eruption of laughter. But "there was a sizable majority of the other party returned to Congress. And, elections have consequences. Elections have consequences. And these consequences we are seeing now in full display."
McCain described himself as "very nervous" about the Obama administration's proposal for FDIC-like resolution authority over non-bank financial institutions like AIG in order to prevent another near calamity in the global financial system.
"I understand that we need some of these institutions to be taken over before they are total failures but I am very nervous about that . . . about the expansion of government oversight," McCain said. "But we have to do a better job of regulation and transparency. The status quo is not acceptable either."
McCain's speech Thursday at the conservative think tank focused on the country's economic crisis and dire long-term fiscal outlook. Before he spoke, the former presidential candidate was greeted by a standing ovation in an auditorium filled with people primarily in their 20's and 30's.
***********************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I agree with John McCain. I remember the excitement I felt the day I found out he had picked Sarah as his running mate. I was in a deep depression after almost two years of working so hard to get Hillary Clinton elected president. I had to deal with the anger and frustration of the nomination being STOLEN from her by Obama, the media, and a corrupt DNC that rigged the primaries AGAINST Hillary and FOR OBAMA. At the convention, Hillary was forced to "acclaim" Obama the nominee. That was the straw that broke the camel's back and I was in yet another phase of a deep depression that started on June 7th when Hillary suspended her campaign.
So when I saw Sarah, I was elated! I did not know her before but I liked her instantly! And best of all, she was a "regular person." A young woman of 44 with 5 children, the first woman to be on the Republican ticket. The crowds started coming out and screaming for Sarah. They loved her. I loved her. I wanted her to be the Vice President. If I couldn't have Hillary as my president, I would settle for Sarah as my Vice President. And maybe I would still see a woman president in my lifetime.
PUMAS were born in June 2008. For those not familiar with the term, PUMAS are people, mostly women, who supported Hillary but refused to support Obama. Many, many PUMAS voted for Sarah. We were voting for McCain as a protest vote, but when Sarah came on the scene, that made my decision so much easier. Exit polls showed that 16% of people who voted for McCain said they would have voted for Hillary IF SHE had been the Democratic nominee. That's 9 MILLION PUMAS!! Now two months into the Obama administration, and even though I am so happy Hillary IS our Secretary of State, I would gladly go back and have had McCain win. I think our country would be in a much safer and more SANE position than it is in now. Obama IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY! GOD HELP US. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart
Speaking at the Heritage Foundation Thursday, Sen. McCain acknowledged the political star power of his former running mate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Former Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has no illusions about the 2008 White House race.
"God bless them," McCain said Thursday at the Heritage Foundation when reminded of the tens of millions of people who voted for him last year.
"Over 50 million people voted for me and Sarah Palin - mostly for Sarah Palin," McCain said to an eruption of laughter. But "there was a sizable majority of the other party returned to Congress. And, elections have consequences. Elections have consequences. And these consequences we are seeing now in full display."
McCain described himself as "very nervous" about the Obama administration's proposal for FDIC-like resolution authority over non-bank financial institutions like AIG in order to prevent another near calamity in the global financial system.
"I understand that we need some of these institutions to be taken over before they are total failures but I am very nervous about that . . . about the expansion of government oversight," McCain said. "But we have to do a better job of regulation and transparency. The status quo is not acceptable either."
McCain's speech Thursday at the conservative think tank focused on the country's economic crisis and dire long-term fiscal outlook. Before he spoke, the former presidential candidate was greeted by a standing ovation in an auditorium filled with people primarily in their 20's and 30's.
***********************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I agree with John McCain. I remember the excitement I felt the day I found out he had picked Sarah as his running mate. I was in a deep depression after almost two years of working so hard to get Hillary Clinton elected president. I had to deal with the anger and frustration of the nomination being STOLEN from her by Obama, the media, and a corrupt DNC that rigged the primaries AGAINST Hillary and FOR OBAMA. At the convention, Hillary was forced to "acclaim" Obama the nominee. That was the straw that broke the camel's back and I was in yet another phase of a deep depression that started on June 7th when Hillary suspended her campaign.
So when I saw Sarah, I was elated! I did not know her before but I liked her instantly! And best of all, she was a "regular person." A young woman of 44 with 5 children, the first woman to be on the Republican ticket. The crowds started coming out and screaming for Sarah. They loved her. I loved her. I wanted her to be the Vice President. If I couldn't have Hillary as my president, I would settle for Sarah as my Vice President. And maybe I would still see a woman president in my lifetime.
PUMAS were born in June 2008. For those not familiar with the term, PUMAS are people, mostly women, who supported Hillary but refused to support Obama. Many, many PUMAS voted for Sarah. We were voting for McCain as a protest vote, but when Sarah came on the scene, that made my decision so much easier. Exit polls showed that 16% of people who voted for McCain said they would have voted for Hillary IF SHE had been the Democratic nominee. That's 9 MILLION PUMAS!! Now two months into the Obama administration, and even though I am so happy Hillary IS our Secretary of State, I would gladly go back and have had McCain win. I think our country would be in a much safer and more SANE position than it is in now. Obama IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY! GOD HELP US. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
THE GOVERNOR WHO FLIES COACH!!!
Imagine that! The Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, actually flies coach when she flies! THIS is one of the things I LOVE about Sarah! I am not a Conservative. I do not agree with a lot of Sarah's beliefs. But she is a regular person who is not a corrupt politician. She is a politician because she really wants to change things for the better. Imagine just for a second if ALL of our politicians were like this. Hard to, isn't it? Imagine how much better this country would be! For one thing there would be No Barack Obamas period. And he certainly would NOT be invading our White House!
Friday, March 20, 2009
GOVERNOR PALIN REJECTS OVER 30% OF STIMULUS MONEY.
Palin rejects over 30% of stimulus money
31 PERCENT: She says state can't commit to continuation.
By SEAN COCKERHAM
Anchorage Daily News | scockerham@adn.com
March 20th, 2009
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services.
The news Thursday drew anger from those who accused Palin of putting her national political aspirations ahead of the state's interests, and admiration from others who say she has courage to turn down money that would expand government. The state Legislature will have an opportunity to override her decision.
Palin is not taking about $288 million of the $930.7 million that Alaska is due in the federal stimulus. Palin said she is accepting the federal stimulus money that would go for construction projects, but not funding directed at government operations.
"We are not requesting funds intended to just grow government," Palin said. "In essence we say no to operating funds for more positions in government."
Palin first told the news media that she's turning down nearly half the federal stimulus money -- but later conceded that does not count the Medicaid money she is accepting. That brings down what she's refusing to 31 percent of what the state government could get. Local governments and nonprofits could still compete for stimulus grants.
The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.
Palin said she's sure that her decision on the education money will draw the most heat, and that she wouldn't be surprised if the Legislature tries to change it. "It is a matter of discussing with our lawmakers if the expansion there is something we're willing to pick up the tab for when the federal dollars dry up, when they no longer flow into Alaska," Palin said.
Anchorage Democratic Rep. Les Gara argued that it's bad governing not to do things he said would improve schools and reduce the unemployment rate for two years just because it might not last forever. Gara suggested that Palin is pandering to voters outside Alaska in order to further her own national political ambitions.
"I'm worried the governor is taking this sort of national political stance, which is that she's going to be the opposite of Barack Obama on everything," Gara said.
Sitka Republican Sen. Bert Stedman suggested a combination of factors could be at work.
"She's got the best interests of the state and her career at heart," said Stedman.
Stedman, who is a leader in the bipartisan majority in the state Senate, said legislators will take a close look at what Palin has done but that it's too soon to pronounce judgment.
Palin said she'd work with the Legislature to see if it wants to go ahead and accept some of the money -- although she didn't rule out vetoes if she doesn't agree with the choices. Palin said a dialogue with legislators and the public is needed for Alaska to chart its course.
There's confusion over when the state Legislature's deadline is to decide if it wants the money Palin turned down. It appears April 3 could be a deadline, but state lawmakers said they plan to get around it by passing a resolution technically accepting all of the stimulus money by that date. Then they'll do the heavy work of figuring out what money they want, with the knowledge Congress can't really force it on them. That's liable to dominate the rest of this year's legislative session, which ends April 19.
The governor could have a point in not wanting the money, said state House Speaker Mike Chenault. "There's a number of us that have the same concerns about what does it do to our budget in the future," said the Republican from Nikiski.
But Chenault said that the federal education money, in particular, could be good to have.
Members of the all-Republican state Senate minority said Palin is taking a wise course and it's important not to accept federal money that could end up costing the state in the long run. People could come to expect the programs, leaving the state paying for them to continue, said the governor and her allies within the state Legislature.
"This offer from the Congress and the Obama administration is a little bit like having way too much to drink," said Sen. Con Bunde, a Republican from Anchorage. "A good time may be had by all, but the hangover the next day, and the consequences of what you did while you were drunk, may be with you for a long, long time."
Acting Anchorage Mayor Matt Claman said he's disappointed Palin chose to turn down funding that would create jobs and maintain services. "Her rationale is like turning down a gift card because it expires in two years," Claman said in a written statement.
Palin is turning down money for weatherization, energy efficiency grants, immunizations, air quality grants, emergency food assistance, homeless grants, senior meals, child care development grants, nutrition programs, homeless grants, arts, unemployment services, air quality, justice assistance grants and other programs.
Palin said some funds she turned down have federal strings attached: Up to $64 million in energy funds would require the state to mandate a building code change, her office said, while $15 million in unemployment help requires the state to expand eligibility for benefits. Alaska should decide these things, Palin said.
There was mixed reaction from Alaska's Congressional delegation.
U.S. Sen. Mark Begich called on state legislators to accept the stimulus money. "I trust the legislature will do the right thing and take Alaska's share of the money for education in the economic recovery package," the Alaska Democrat said in a written statement. "We owe it to our children to give them the most opportunities possible, and this is money fairly allocated to Alaska in this stimulus package."
U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who along with all House Republicans voted against the stimulus package, wouldn't take sides Thursday. Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said the governor was right to take the part of the stimulus that covers transportation and other infrastructure projects -- as that will create jobs in Alaska. She said Palin is required to certify that the stimulus money will be used to create jobs and foster economic growth; Palin has made her decision on what funds she thinks meet that criteria and now it's the Legislature's turn to review it, Murkowski said.
Palin appears to be the third Republican U.S. governor to say "no thanks" to a portion of the $787 billion federal economic stimulus package, signed into law last month. Texas Gov. Rick Perry and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford -- both also Republicans -- already have rejected some of the money that is allocated to their states.
Sanford, who like Palin is seen as potentially having his eye on a 2012 presidential bid, already has drawn criticism for his refusal to take some of the federal money. The Democratic National Committee began on Monday to air a television commercial critical of the South Carolina governor's move. The DNC immediately took the offensive Thursday and declared Palin a hypocrite, given that she has requested earmarks and that Alaska receives more federal dollars per capita than any other state.
Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who heads up the National Governors Association, said it would be hard to tell a worker who loses his or her job that the state is turning down unemployment assistance in order to make a statement. But he said he understands Palin's decision might be based on unique conditions in Alaska.
"Alaska doesn't have a deficit because of the oil revenues, even though oil revenues are down," Rendell said. "That puts Gov. Palin in a different position. She doesn't need federal funding to keep from laying off workers. Alaska is probably in a different status than almost any of us."
Palin said it's not a gift when Congress offers dollars with strings attached that would increase government and require the state to follow mandates from Washington, D.C.
"To me it's a bribe," Palin said.
********************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
This refusal by Sarah to accept what part of the stimulus money she does not want with strings attached is yet another example of what a breath of fresh air she is! I know there are those who oppose her decision and are angry but those seem to be the Democrats so no big surprise there. And as for those who are cynical and are assuming Sarah is doing this because of her political aspirations, well just because that's how THEY would think, does not mean that's how this governor thinks!
Sarah proved her financial responsiblity when upon becoming governor, she sold the private plane and got rid of the cook at the Governor's Mansion. How many politicians would do THAT? Not many, if any others. This woman has proven to be a REAL PERSON who just happened to get into politics - not someone devious and conniving and corrupt. I think Sarah will make a fine president one day!
31 PERCENT: She says state can't commit to continuation.
By SEAN COCKERHAM
Anchorage Daily News | scockerham@adn.com
March 20th, 2009
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services.
The news Thursday drew anger from those who accused Palin of putting her national political aspirations ahead of the state's interests, and admiration from others who say she has courage to turn down money that would expand government. The state Legislature will have an opportunity to override her decision.
Palin is not taking about $288 million of the $930.7 million that Alaska is due in the federal stimulus. Palin said she is accepting the federal stimulus money that would go for construction projects, but not funding directed at government operations.
"We are not requesting funds intended to just grow government," Palin said. "In essence we say no to operating funds for more positions in government."
Palin first told the news media that she's turning down nearly half the federal stimulus money -- but later conceded that does not count the Medicaid money she is accepting. That brings down what she's refusing to 31 percent of what the state government could get. Local governments and nonprofits could still compete for stimulus grants.
The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.
Palin said she's sure that her decision on the education money will draw the most heat, and that she wouldn't be surprised if the Legislature tries to change it. "It is a matter of discussing with our lawmakers if the expansion there is something we're willing to pick up the tab for when the federal dollars dry up, when they no longer flow into Alaska," Palin said.
Anchorage Democratic Rep. Les Gara argued that it's bad governing not to do things he said would improve schools and reduce the unemployment rate for two years just because it might not last forever. Gara suggested that Palin is pandering to voters outside Alaska in order to further her own national political ambitions.
"I'm worried the governor is taking this sort of national political stance, which is that she's going to be the opposite of Barack Obama on everything," Gara said.
Sitka Republican Sen. Bert Stedman suggested a combination of factors could be at work.
"She's got the best interests of the state and her career at heart," said Stedman.
Stedman, who is a leader in the bipartisan majority in the state Senate, said legislators will take a close look at what Palin has done but that it's too soon to pronounce judgment.
Palin said she'd work with the Legislature to see if it wants to go ahead and accept some of the money -- although she didn't rule out vetoes if she doesn't agree with the choices. Palin said a dialogue with legislators and the public is needed for Alaska to chart its course.
There's confusion over when the state Legislature's deadline is to decide if it wants the money Palin turned down. It appears April 3 could be a deadline, but state lawmakers said they plan to get around it by passing a resolution technically accepting all of the stimulus money by that date. Then they'll do the heavy work of figuring out what money they want, with the knowledge Congress can't really force it on them. That's liable to dominate the rest of this year's legislative session, which ends April 19.
The governor could have a point in not wanting the money, said state House Speaker Mike Chenault. "There's a number of us that have the same concerns about what does it do to our budget in the future," said the Republican from Nikiski.
But Chenault said that the federal education money, in particular, could be good to have.
Members of the all-Republican state Senate minority said Palin is taking a wise course and it's important not to accept federal money that could end up costing the state in the long run. People could come to expect the programs, leaving the state paying for them to continue, said the governor and her allies within the state Legislature.
"This offer from the Congress and the Obama administration is a little bit like having way too much to drink," said Sen. Con Bunde, a Republican from Anchorage. "A good time may be had by all, but the hangover the next day, and the consequences of what you did while you were drunk, may be with you for a long, long time."
Acting Anchorage Mayor Matt Claman said he's disappointed Palin chose to turn down funding that would create jobs and maintain services. "Her rationale is like turning down a gift card because it expires in two years," Claman said in a written statement.
Palin is turning down money for weatherization, energy efficiency grants, immunizations, air quality grants, emergency food assistance, homeless grants, senior meals, child care development grants, nutrition programs, homeless grants, arts, unemployment services, air quality, justice assistance grants and other programs.
Palin said some funds she turned down have federal strings attached: Up to $64 million in energy funds would require the state to mandate a building code change, her office said, while $15 million in unemployment help requires the state to expand eligibility for benefits. Alaska should decide these things, Palin said.
There was mixed reaction from Alaska's Congressional delegation.
U.S. Sen. Mark Begich called on state legislators to accept the stimulus money. "I trust the legislature will do the right thing and take Alaska's share of the money for education in the economic recovery package," the Alaska Democrat said in a written statement. "We owe it to our children to give them the most opportunities possible, and this is money fairly allocated to Alaska in this stimulus package."
U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who along with all House Republicans voted against the stimulus package, wouldn't take sides Thursday. Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said the governor was right to take the part of the stimulus that covers transportation and other infrastructure projects -- as that will create jobs in Alaska. She said Palin is required to certify that the stimulus money will be used to create jobs and foster economic growth; Palin has made her decision on what funds she thinks meet that criteria and now it's the Legislature's turn to review it, Murkowski said.
Palin appears to be the third Republican U.S. governor to say "no thanks" to a portion of the $787 billion federal economic stimulus package, signed into law last month. Texas Gov. Rick Perry and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford -- both also Republicans -- already have rejected some of the money that is allocated to their states.
Sanford, who like Palin is seen as potentially having his eye on a 2012 presidential bid, already has drawn criticism for his refusal to take some of the federal money. The Democratic National Committee began on Monday to air a television commercial critical of the South Carolina governor's move. The DNC immediately took the offensive Thursday and declared Palin a hypocrite, given that she has requested earmarks and that Alaska receives more federal dollars per capita than any other state.
Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who heads up the National Governors Association, said it would be hard to tell a worker who loses his or her job that the state is turning down unemployment assistance in order to make a statement. But he said he understands Palin's decision might be based on unique conditions in Alaska.
"Alaska doesn't have a deficit because of the oil revenues, even though oil revenues are down," Rendell said. "That puts Gov. Palin in a different position. She doesn't need federal funding to keep from laying off workers. Alaska is probably in a different status than almost any of us."
Palin said it's not a gift when Congress offers dollars with strings attached that would increase government and require the state to follow mandates from Washington, D.C.
"To me it's a bribe," Palin said.
********************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
This refusal by Sarah to accept what part of the stimulus money she does not want with strings attached is yet another example of what a breath of fresh air she is! I know there are those who oppose her decision and are angry but those seem to be the Democrats so no big surprise there. And as for those who are cynical and are assuming Sarah is doing this because of her political aspirations, well just because that's how THEY would think, does not mean that's how this governor thinks!
Sarah proved her financial responsiblity when upon becoming governor, she sold the private plane and got rid of the cook at the Governor's Mansion. How many politicians would do THAT? Not many, if any others. This woman has proven to be a REAL PERSON who just happened to get into politics - not someone devious and conniving and corrupt. I think Sarah will make a fine president one day!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
THE PROTECTORS OF THE PALIN BRAND.
The Protecters of the Palin Brand
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has put together a group of "brand managers" as she prepares for 2012. (AP Photo/Al Grillo)
There is no brand in Republican politics as powerful -- or as tenuous -- as that of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
She is simultaneously the hottest commodity on the Republican fundraising circuit and a figure of ridicule among Democrats (and even many Independents) who believe that her status as a national figure is entirely undeserved.
Even Palin and her political team seem to be struggling somewhat with how much or little to expose her at the national level.
Witness the odd back and forth over the past 24 hours regarding her involvement in the annual Republican House-Senate fundraising dinner in June.
Yesterday afternoon the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee issued a joint press release touting Palin as the keynote speaker at their fundraising dinner on June 8 in Washington. Then the governor's spokesman told the Anchorage Daily News that the NRSC and NRCC were mistaken in announcing Palin as the keynoter, insisting that she had agreed to no such thing.
The misunderstanding appeared to be the result of a miscommunication (or lack of communication) between Palin's office in Alaska and her still-forming political team running Sarah PAC. (The dinner, as we understand it, is on.)
"A lot of people may be able to overlook the campaign, because the McCain team was calling the shots," said one D.C.-based source familiar with Palin's political operation. "But even since the election she has not been served well by her inner circle. Going forward, there needs to be a seamless operation if they want to position her as a serious contender for 2012."
So, who are the figures charged with guiding Palin's political image in Washington? Here's the lineup based on our conversations with informed strategists.
• John Coale: Coale, a well-known Washington lawyer and the husband of Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren, drew national media attention when he endorsed Sen. John McCain's presidential bid in protest of the way in which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who he backed in the primary, was treated. Coale, in an interview with the Fix, described himself simply as a "friend" of the Alaska governor but acknowledged that he suggested she start a leadership PAC and helped her navigate through some of the questions surrounding her family that lingered after the campaign. Others familiar with Palin's political team insist that Coale has far more power than he is letting on -- essentially helping to run Sarah PAC. Coale demurred on that front, noting only that he talks to Palin regularly and that she is a "fascinating person" who is "definitely not what the right thinks or the left thinks."
• Meg Stapleton: Stapleton serves as the Alaska spokeswoman for Sarah PAC after having played a similar role for the governor during the vice presidential campaign and in the governor's office. Stapleton has been the lead defender of Palin from barbs thrown at her -- often from those allied with McCain -- in the aftermath of the 2008 campaign and, generally, wins positive reviews from Washington insiders not directly allied with the governor.
• Pam Pryor: Pryor is the Washington spokesperson for Sarah PAC after serving as a senior adviser to the Republican National Committee during last year's general election campaign. Pryor has previously served in a variety of political jobs in Washington including as press secretary and chief of staff to former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts.
• Becki Donatelli: Donatelli, as we reported a few weeks ago, is officially running Sarah PAC. She is the chairman of Campaign Solutions, a fundraising and Internet strategy firm based in Virginia.
By Chris Cillizza | March 17, 2009
******************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Keep Sarah in the spotlight and promote her all you want! Unless Hillary is running for president in 2012 (and as Secretary of State for Obama, I seriously doubt it), I will vote for Sarah Palin if she runs. After Hillary, Sarah is my best chance to see a woman president before I die! And contrary to what people think, contrary to the media who set out to DESTROY her at every turn, Sarah has more competence in her pinky finger than Obama has in his whole body! Go Sarah!!
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has put together a group of "brand managers" as she prepares for 2012. (AP Photo/Al Grillo)
There is no brand in Republican politics as powerful -- or as tenuous -- as that of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
She is simultaneously the hottest commodity on the Republican fundraising circuit and a figure of ridicule among Democrats (and even many Independents) who believe that her status as a national figure is entirely undeserved.
Even Palin and her political team seem to be struggling somewhat with how much or little to expose her at the national level.
Witness the odd back and forth over the past 24 hours regarding her involvement in the annual Republican House-Senate fundraising dinner in June.
Yesterday afternoon the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee issued a joint press release touting Palin as the keynote speaker at their fundraising dinner on June 8 in Washington. Then the governor's spokesman told the Anchorage Daily News that the NRSC and NRCC were mistaken in announcing Palin as the keynoter, insisting that she had agreed to no such thing.
The misunderstanding appeared to be the result of a miscommunication (or lack of communication) between Palin's office in Alaska and her still-forming political team running Sarah PAC. (The dinner, as we understand it, is on.)
"A lot of people may be able to overlook the campaign, because the McCain team was calling the shots," said one D.C.-based source familiar with Palin's political operation. "But even since the election she has not been served well by her inner circle. Going forward, there needs to be a seamless operation if they want to position her as a serious contender for 2012."
So, who are the figures charged with guiding Palin's political image in Washington? Here's the lineup based on our conversations with informed strategists.
• John Coale: Coale, a well-known Washington lawyer and the husband of Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren, drew national media attention when he endorsed Sen. John McCain's presidential bid in protest of the way in which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who he backed in the primary, was treated. Coale, in an interview with the Fix, described himself simply as a "friend" of the Alaska governor but acknowledged that he suggested she start a leadership PAC and helped her navigate through some of the questions surrounding her family that lingered after the campaign. Others familiar with Palin's political team insist that Coale has far more power than he is letting on -- essentially helping to run Sarah PAC. Coale demurred on that front, noting only that he talks to Palin regularly and that she is a "fascinating person" who is "definitely not what the right thinks or the left thinks."
• Meg Stapleton: Stapleton serves as the Alaska spokeswoman for Sarah PAC after having played a similar role for the governor during the vice presidential campaign and in the governor's office. Stapleton has been the lead defender of Palin from barbs thrown at her -- often from those allied with McCain -- in the aftermath of the 2008 campaign and, generally, wins positive reviews from Washington insiders not directly allied with the governor.
• Pam Pryor: Pryor is the Washington spokesperson for Sarah PAC after serving as a senior adviser to the Republican National Committee during last year's general election campaign. Pryor has previously served in a variety of political jobs in Washington including as press secretary and chief of staff to former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts.
• Becki Donatelli: Donatelli, as we reported a few weeks ago, is officially running Sarah PAC. She is the chairman of Campaign Solutions, a fundraising and Internet strategy firm based in Virginia.
By Chris Cillizza | March 17, 2009
******************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Keep Sarah in the spotlight and promote her all you want! Unless Hillary is running for president in 2012 (and as Secretary of State for Obama, I seriously doubt it), I will vote for Sarah Palin if she runs. After Hillary, Sarah is my best chance to see a woman president before I die! And contrary to what people think, contrary to the media who set out to DESTROY her at every turn, Sarah has more competence in her pinky finger than Obama has in his whole body! Go Sarah!!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
SARAH SPEAKS OUT FOR SPECIAL OLYMPICS.
How can anyone NOT like this woman? She is so full of love for her children - ALL her children and considers little Trig no different from the rest of her offspring. Not many women can be the Governor of a state, a wife, and the mother of 5 children!
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
BRISTOL PALIN BREAKS UP WITH BABY'S FATHER.
Bristol Palin, Fiance Break Up.
WASILLA, Alaska (March 11) — The engagement is off for the teenage daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and the father of her baby.
Levi Johnston told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he and Bristol Palin mutually decided "a while ago" to end their relationship. The 19-year-old Johnston declined to elaborate.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's teen daughter Bristol has called it quits with Levi Johnston, the father of her 2-month-old son. Johnston said on Wednesday that the couple mutually decided "a while ago" to go their separate ways.
Eighteen-year-old Bristol Palin said in a statement to the AP that she is "devastated."
The two are the parents of a boy named Tripp, who was born Dec. 27.
Sarah Palin revealed her daughter's pregnancy days after being named John McCain's running mate on the Republican presidential ticket.
In an interview that aired on Fox News last month, Bristol Palin said her fiance saw the baby every day and called him a "hands-on" dad.
The two had said they were considering a summer wedding.
It's unclear what led to the split. "It kind of just happened," a source close to the couple told PEOPLE. "I thought they would stick it out. But I think they can work together to raise Tripp."
Levi Johnson's dad, Keith Johnston, recently told the magazine that his son is a devoted and "proud father."
WASILLA, Alaska (March 11) — The engagement is off for the teenage daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and the father of her baby.
Levi Johnston told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he and Bristol Palin mutually decided "a while ago" to end their relationship. The 19-year-old Johnston declined to elaborate.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's teen daughter Bristol has called it quits with Levi Johnston, the father of her 2-month-old son. Johnston said on Wednesday that the couple mutually decided "a while ago" to go their separate ways.
Eighteen-year-old Bristol Palin said in a statement to the AP that she is "devastated."
The two are the parents of a boy named Tripp, who was born Dec. 27.
Sarah Palin revealed her daughter's pregnancy days after being named John McCain's running mate on the Republican presidential ticket.
In an interview that aired on Fox News last month, Bristol Palin said her fiance saw the baby every day and called him a "hands-on" dad.
The two had said they were considering a summer wedding.
It's unclear what led to the split. "It kind of just happened," a source close to the couple told PEOPLE. "I thought they would stick it out. But I think they can work together to raise Tripp."
Levi Johnson's dad, Keith Johnston, recently told the magazine that his son is a devoted and "proud father."
Friday, March 6, 2009
GOVERNOR PALIN SELECTS WOMAN TO ALASKA SUPREME COURT.
Christen Named to Alaska Supreme Court
Governor Palin Names Christen to Alaska Supreme Court
March 4, 2009, Juneau, Alaska – Governor Sarah Palin selected Anchorage Superior Court Judge Morgan Christen to the Alaska Supreme Court. Christen is the 20th justice appointed to the Court.
"Alaska's Supreme Court bears the awesome responsibility of ensuring that our court system administers justice in firm accordance with the principles laid down in our state Constitution," said Governor Palin. "I have every confidence that Judge Christen has the experience, intellect, wisdom and character to be an outstanding Supreme Court justice."
Christen, 47, was born in Chehalis, Washington. After attending colleges in England, Switzerland, and the People's Republic of China, she received a bachelor's degree in international studies from the University of Washington in 1983, and a law degree from Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco, California, in 1986.
Christen worked as a law clerk to Anchorage Superior Court Justice Brian Shortell from 1986-87, then joined Preston, Gates & Ellis in 1987, becoming a partner in 1992. She was appointed as an Anchorage Superior Court justice in 2002, and has been presiding judge since 2005.
Christen currently serves on the boards of the Alaska Community Foundation and the Rasmuson Foundation, and previously served on the boards of the United Way of Anchorage, and of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. A past president of Anchorage Association of Women Lawyers, she has also won the Anchorage Chamber's Light of Hope award for helping Alaska children in 2004, and won the Anchorage Chamber's Athena Society Award in 2006. She has been a member of the Downtown Anchorage Rotary Club since 1992.
The Alaska Supreme Court serves as the ultimate court of appeals for the state's District and Superior Courts. The chief justice and four associate justices hear cases in Anchorage on a monthly basis and in Fairbanks and Juneau on a quarterly basis. The court also administers the state's judicial system.
Christen will replace Justice Warren Matthews, who has served on the Supreme Court for 22 years, including six years as chief justice, from 1987-1990 and again from 1997-2000. State law bars judges from serving past 70, and Matthews will turn 70 on April 5.
"I am grateful to Justice Matthews for his long years of service to the people of Alaska on the high court," Governor Palin said.
Under current judicial selection procedures, the Alaska Judicial Council received applications from six Alaska attorneys, winnowed the list to two names, and forwarded them to the governor.
The Official Sarah Palin PAC
Paid for by SarahPAC
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee
www.SarahPAC.com
Governor Palin Names Christen to Alaska Supreme Court
March 4, 2009, Juneau, Alaska – Governor Sarah Palin selected Anchorage Superior Court Judge Morgan Christen to the Alaska Supreme Court. Christen is the 20th justice appointed to the Court.
"Alaska's Supreme Court bears the awesome responsibility of ensuring that our court system administers justice in firm accordance with the principles laid down in our state Constitution," said Governor Palin. "I have every confidence that Judge Christen has the experience, intellect, wisdom and character to be an outstanding Supreme Court justice."
Christen, 47, was born in Chehalis, Washington. After attending colleges in England, Switzerland, and the People's Republic of China, she received a bachelor's degree in international studies from the University of Washington in 1983, and a law degree from Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco, California, in 1986.
Christen worked as a law clerk to Anchorage Superior Court Justice Brian Shortell from 1986-87, then joined Preston, Gates & Ellis in 1987, becoming a partner in 1992. She was appointed as an Anchorage Superior Court justice in 2002, and has been presiding judge since 2005.
Christen currently serves on the boards of the Alaska Community Foundation and the Rasmuson Foundation, and previously served on the boards of the United Way of Anchorage, and of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. A past president of Anchorage Association of Women Lawyers, she has also won the Anchorage Chamber's Light of Hope award for helping Alaska children in 2004, and won the Anchorage Chamber's Athena Society Award in 2006. She has been a member of the Downtown Anchorage Rotary Club since 1992.
The Alaska Supreme Court serves as the ultimate court of appeals for the state's District and Superior Courts. The chief justice and four associate justices hear cases in Anchorage on a monthly basis and in Fairbanks and Juneau on a quarterly basis. The court also administers the state's judicial system.
Christen will replace Justice Warren Matthews, who has served on the Supreme Court for 22 years, including six years as chief justice, from 1987-1990 and again from 1997-2000. State law bars judges from serving past 70, and Matthews will turn 70 on April 5.
"I am grateful to Justice Matthews for his long years of service to the people of Alaska on the high court," Governor Palin said.
Under current judicial selection procedures, the Alaska Judicial Council received applications from six Alaska attorneys, winnowed the list to two names, and forwarded them to the governor.
The Official Sarah Palin PAC
Paid for by SarahPAC
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee
www.SarahPAC.com
Thursday, March 5, 2009
SEX APPEAL MAY HAVE HURT SARAH PALIN.
Sex Appeal May Have Hurt Sarah Palin
By: Tom Jacobs | March 04, 2009
In a Sept. 4, 2008 column, just after Sarah Palin accepted the Republican nomination for vice-president, Will Wilkinson wrote admiringly of her “sexual power,” adding: “I think she is a tremendously sexy woman. How this will affect the race, I have no idea, but it’s just got to.”
New research suggests the Cato Institute research fellow was right. The Alaska governor’s attractiveness may indeed have affected the race — by making voters less likely to support the GOP ticket.
In a paper just published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, psychologists Nathan Heflick and Jamie Goldenberg of the University of South Florida describe an experiment they conducted shortly after Wilkinson wrote those words. Building upon 1980s research suggesting attractive women in high-status jobs are perceived as less competent (a finding that has been challenged in recent years), they examined whether Palin’s sex appeal — the subject of endless media chatter in the weeks after she joined the ticket — hindered her ability to make the case she was up for the job.
They took a group of 133 undergraduates and assigned them to write a few lines about one of two celebrities: Palin or actress Angelina Jolie. Half of the participants in each category were asked to write “your thoughts and feelings about this person,” while the other half were asked to write “your thoughts and feelings about this person’s appearance.”
The participants were then asked to rate their subject (Palin or Jolie) in terms of various attributes, including competence. Finally, they were asked who they intended to vote for in the upcoming election.
Those who wrote about Palin’s appearance were more positive in their assessments than those who assessed her qualities as a person, but they rated her far lower in terms of competence, intelligence and capability, and were far less likely to indicate they planned to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket.
“It wasn’t her appearance per se” that soured people on Palin, Heflick said in an interview. “It was the effect her appearance had on their perception of her competence and humanity. Those variables made people less likely to vote for her.” (Not surprisingly, the participants’ feelings about Jolie did not influence their political opinions, whether they focused on her looks or personality.)
Heflick noted that all the self-proclaimed Democrats participating in the exercise indicated they were voting for Obama. So at least in this sample, it was Republicans and independents who were internally debating Palin’s suitability for the job. The study suggests that their confidence in her abilities may have decreased the more they focused on her looks — and thus, in feminist terms, objectified her.
There’s no question that, in the early weeks of the campaign, Palin’s attractiveness was a subject of intense fascination in the media. Even today, the Web site of GQ magazine refers to the Alaska governor as “the cougar in chief,” commenting, “She’s here, she’s built, and she’s not wearing any goddamn old-lady-senator suits, either.” (Take that, Hillary Clinton.)
On the other hand, Palin had no problem sowing doubts about her suitability for the job. She hardly demonstrated a grasp of the issues, and was far from fast on her feet during interviews.
Heflick is quick to admit that people cast their votes for a wide variety of reasons, and it’s impossible to say whether her looks truly swayed voters. Nevertheless, he finds the study’s results troubling, in that they suggest being seen as sexually attractive may impact a woman’s “real-world chances of success.”
What’s more, this dynamic isn’t due solely to the one-track mind of males: The study group was dominated by women, with 96 taking part along with 37 men.
So did the Republican Party make a mistake in heightening Palin’s attractiveness by buying her all those beautiful outfits (a controversy that didn’t break out until after Heflick and Goldenberg completed their experiment)? Perhaps so. Americans have come to accept the idea of a female president, but we may not quite be ready for a sex-symbol-in-chief.
**************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that this article is true? As soon as Sarah was picked as V.P. running mate, right away there were pictures on the web of her in a bikini (not her body), they are making a porno film with a Sarah-look-alike, etc. So what does that say about America? No wonder Hillary always makes sure she's wearing pantsuits. She wants to appear as much as the "one who wears the pants" as the man. I truly believe Sarah's appearance influenced people's opinion of her and they didn't even listen to what she was saying. Between "sex appeal", sexism, and misogny, will we EVER have a woman president? Some day there will be (I think). However, I doubt I will live to see it.
By: Tom Jacobs | March 04, 2009
In a Sept. 4, 2008 column, just after Sarah Palin accepted the Republican nomination for vice-president, Will Wilkinson wrote admiringly of her “sexual power,” adding: “I think she is a tremendously sexy woman. How this will affect the race, I have no idea, but it’s just got to.”
New research suggests the Cato Institute research fellow was right. The Alaska governor’s attractiveness may indeed have affected the race — by making voters less likely to support the GOP ticket.
In a paper just published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, psychologists Nathan Heflick and Jamie Goldenberg of the University of South Florida describe an experiment they conducted shortly after Wilkinson wrote those words. Building upon 1980s research suggesting attractive women in high-status jobs are perceived as less competent (a finding that has been challenged in recent years), they examined whether Palin’s sex appeal — the subject of endless media chatter in the weeks after she joined the ticket — hindered her ability to make the case she was up for the job.
They took a group of 133 undergraduates and assigned them to write a few lines about one of two celebrities: Palin or actress Angelina Jolie. Half of the participants in each category were asked to write “your thoughts and feelings about this person,” while the other half were asked to write “your thoughts and feelings about this person’s appearance.”
The participants were then asked to rate their subject (Palin or Jolie) in terms of various attributes, including competence. Finally, they were asked who they intended to vote for in the upcoming election.
Those who wrote about Palin’s appearance were more positive in their assessments than those who assessed her qualities as a person, but they rated her far lower in terms of competence, intelligence and capability, and were far less likely to indicate they planned to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket.
“It wasn’t her appearance per se” that soured people on Palin, Heflick said in an interview. “It was the effect her appearance had on their perception of her competence and humanity. Those variables made people less likely to vote for her.” (Not surprisingly, the participants’ feelings about Jolie did not influence their political opinions, whether they focused on her looks or personality.)
Heflick noted that all the self-proclaimed Democrats participating in the exercise indicated they were voting for Obama. So at least in this sample, it was Republicans and independents who were internally debating Palin’s suitability for the job. The study suggests that their confidence in her abilities may have decreased the more they focused on her looks — and thus, in feminist terms, objectified her.
There’s no question that, in the early weeks of the campaign, Palin’s attractiveness was a subject of intense fascination in the media. Even today, the Web site of GQ magazine refers to the Alaska governor as “the cougar in chief,” commenting, “She’s here, she’s built, and she’s not wearing any goddamn old-lady-senator suits, either.” (Take that, Hillary Clinton.)
On the other hand, Palin had no problem sowing doubts about her suitability for the job. She hardly demonstrated a grasp of the issues, and was far from fast on her feet during interviews.
Heflick is quick to admit that people cast their votes for a wide variety of reasons, and it’s impossible to say whether her looks truly swayed voters. Nevertheless, he finds the study’s results troubling, in that they suggest being seen as sexually attractive may impact a woman’s “real-world chances of success.”
What’s more, this dynamic isn’t due solely to the one-track mind of males: The study group was dominated by women, with 96 taking part along with 37 men.
So did the Republican Party make a mistake in heightening Palin’s attractiveness by buying her all those beautiful outfits (a controversy that didn’t break out until after Heflick and Goldenberg completed their experiment)? Perhaps so. Americans have come to accept the idea of a female president, but we may not quite be ready for a sex-symbol-in-chief.
**************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that this article is true? As soon as Sarah was picked as V.P. running mate, right away there were pictures on the web of her in a bikini (not her body), they are making a porno film with a Sarah-look-alike, etc. So what does that say about America? No wonder Hillary always makes sure she's wearing pantsuits. She wants to appear as much as the "one who wears the pants" as the man. I truly believe Sarah's appearance influenced people's opinion of her and they didn't even listen to what she was saying. Between "sex appeal", sexism, and misogny, will we EVER have a woman president? Some day there will be (I think). However, I doubt I will live to see it.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
IF ONLY SHE WERE OUR VICE PRESIDENT........
During the primaries where for the first time in my life, I volunteered for Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign. I worked 17 months so hard actively and another 3 more months PUMAS worked to get her name put into nomination. When she suspended her campaign, I went through a grieving process. I was only cheered up when John McCain chose Sarah as his V.P. running mate. I still am angry that Hillary was ROBBED of the presidency with Obama's caucus fraud, illegal campaign contributions, etc. etc. etc. I am happy she is Secretary of State because she is a brilliant woman and she is a great diplomat for our country. But watching this video, I sure do wish McCain had won and Sarah was our Vice President. I would feel a whole lot safer with them in the White House. I don't trust Obama. We don't even know, as a matter of fact there is great evidence to doubt, he is even a natural born citizen. I hope Sarah runs for president in 2012. She will definitely have my vote!
FOR CONSERVATIVES (AND LIBERALS, TOO), SARAH IS A SYMBOL OF MEDIA BIAS!!!
For Conservatives, Palin a Symbol of Media Bias
Anger Over Campaign Coverage of Palin Permeated CPAC
By David Weigel 3/4/09
(Washington Conservative)
The crowd of about 100 people sits in the dark, hushed, mouths agape, as Gov. Sarah Palin watches clip after clip of 2008 presidential campaign coverage. She peers at a laptop and watches Saturday Night Live star Tina Fey, as “Sarah Palin,” answer a question about moral values.
“I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers,” says Fey. Briefly, we see the hosts of The View, laughing along with the skit.
“How’s that make you feel?” asks John Ziegler.
“The mama grizzly rises up in me,” says Palin, “hearin’ things like that!”
It is the final hours of the Conservative Political Action Conference, and Ziegler is piggybacking off the event by screening, for the second consecutive day, the interview he conducted with Alaska’s governor for his documentary “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.” The crowd shrinks little by little as the interview — 43 minutes long — goes on. Those who remain let out gasps at the clips that Palin is forced to watch, and cheer when she fires back at the voices on the laptop screen.
Palin watches Katie Couric ask her what she reads, then a clip of David Letterman laughing about how Palin’s non-answer was a ploy for the illiterate vote.
“Even in the post-election interview stage,” Katie Couric tells Letterman, “nobody has asked her: Why didn’t you answer that question?”
Palin shakes her head. “Because, Katie, you’re not the center of everybody’s universe. Maybe that’s why they didn’t think to ask that question.” The crowd goes wild.
The governor of Alaska skipped out on CPAC, giving a two-week notice of her non-participation two months after her office hinted that she’d be there. This decision dented her image in the halls of the Omni Shoreham Hotel — she tied Ron Paul for 13 percent support in a straw poll of potential 2012 presidential candidates — but a CNN poll released on Friday gave Palin an early lead among Republican voters who’ll chose the party’s next nominee. Twenty-nine percent of them supported Palin, to 26 percent for Mike Huckabee and 21 percent for Mitt Romney.
Of course, a CNN/USA Today poll taken exactly four years ago gave contender Rudy Giuliani a 34 percent to 29 percent lead over Sen. John McCain. The number is still illustrative. Just as the Republicans of four years ago concerned themselves with national security credibility and war-on-terror heroism, the Republicans of 2009 are looking for a candidate who will run as a diehard conservative while sticking it to the mainstream media. The narrative of Palin’s mistreatment by the press permeated CPAC, spilling over not only into Ziegler’s event, but to the “Conservatism 2.0″ conference held in the hotel by PajamasTV.com.
At the “Washington Tea Party,” a panel of conservative and liberal women modeled after “The View,” Democratic Fox News pundit Mary Ann Marsh fretted about the media’s treatment of female presidential candidates.
“After watching this last presidential campaign,” said Marsh. “I’m not sure how long it will be before a woman can run and win the presidency.” Several voices in the crowd shouted out “2012!”
“It’s worth debating,” said Marsh, “but for all the hue and cry over the treatment Sarah Palin got, Hillary Clinton got it just as bad.” The audience erupted with boos. “Well, we can disagree.”
Ziegler’s documentary is the purest distillation of this outrage. The long interview with Palin is a complement to footage of Obama voters incorrectly answering questions about their candidate and correctly answering questions about Palin and Republicans. The thesis, as Ziegler explained at the screening and as he’s explained elsewhere, is that liberal media bias turned a Republican star into a joke by lying and manipulating the public.
“The worst mistake the McCain campaign made,” said Ziegler, “was not making sure that every interview Sarah Palin did was live. Having her do taped interviews was the worst mistake. It gave the enemy the opportunity to edit her words, and it let them ask questions they wouldn’t have dared ask her on live TV, because if she got them right they’d look like morons.” The campaign should have booked Palin on Larry King Live. “Larry would have been slobbering over himself, as usual, but with a beautiful woman in front of him he would have been helpless. And she would have looked spectacular.”
The Sarah Palin who appears in Media Malpractice is a rorshach test. To reporters who had seen clips and talked to the filmmaker, the governor wallows in the lost campaign and comes off looking sore. To Ziegler, and to the people who watched the screening, she is a likeable, real person who’d be within her rights to hold grudges against those who destroyed her image.
“I saw that Katie Couric interview when it aired,” one man told Ziegler. “I had to turn it off… it was causing bile to rise up in my throat.”
In the film, Ziegler argues that Couric was unfair to Palin in the series of interviews she held with the governor during the campaign by “taking off the table” Roe vs. Wade and asking Palin to name another Supreme Court decision. In the Q&A Ziegler pondered what it meant that Joe Biden, given the same question, had handled it more adroitly. “Joe Biden had so many other gaffes in the campaign that he could have said anything and it wouldn’t have mattered.”
As this argument goes, no candidate could have fared better than Palin. Any conservative who runs for high office will be pummeled by a liberal press that loads its questions. In the Palin interview, Zeigler explains that the media’s questions are so slanted that conservatives must think through every trap and every trick, and even that little pause can make them look ill-informed.
“What would have happened if Barack Obama had been asked the question, “‘What do you read?’” asked Zeigler after the screening. “Would they have gone after Obama if he took six seconds to think about it? No, the question wouldn’t have even been asked. [Couric] would have been fired for being a racist.”
Late into the Media Malpractice interview of Palin, Ziegler asks whether the treatment of Caroline Kennedy by the political press reflected a class bias; Palin partially agrees that it does. But in the weeks after the Ziegler-Palin conversation, Kennedy was pilloried in the media for perceived elitism, for not voting in multiple elections, and for saying “you know” to fill gaps in her conversations. She tumbled in public opinion polls and lost her shot at New York’s open Senate seat — if she ever had one.
“Certainly, Kennedy did get some criticism,” said Ziegler after the screening. “You should compare it not to Sarah Palin, but to the what the reaction would have been if she’d been a conservative. I think it’s pretty clear.”
As Ziegler walked out of the screening, to a table where copies of the film were selling two for $20 (”our send one to a liberal campaign”) TWI asked Ziegler if he felt the documentary had helped or hurt Palin’s chances for 2012. “I know I didn’t hurt her image,” said Ziegler. “I thought she was very good. You don’t think she was good in the interview?” No matter how the rest of the press interprets the interview, the lesson that conservatives need to take on the press and be ready for its bias is indelible.”
“George W. Bush decided not to fight back, and look what happened to him. He crawled up into the fetal position the moment Katrina hit and from then on.”
Anger Over Campaign Coverage of Palin Permeated CPAC
By David Weigel 3/4/09
(Washington Conservative)
The crowd of about 100 people sits in the dark, hushed, mouths agape, as Gov. Sarah Palin watches clip after clip of 2008 presidential campaign coverage. She peers at a laptop and watches Saturday Night Live star Tina Fey, as “Sarah Palin,” answer a question about moral values.
“I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers,” says Fey. Briefly, we see the hosts of The View, laughing along with the skit.
“How’s that make you feel?” asks John Ziegler.
“The mama grizzly rises up in me,” says Palin, “hearin’ things like that!”
It is the final hours of the Conservative Political Action Conference, and Ziegler is piggybacking off the event by screening, for the second consecutive day, the interview he conducted with Alaska’s governor for his documentary “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.” The crowd shrinks little by little as the interview — 43 minutes long — goes on. Those who remain let out gasps at the clips that Palin is forced to watch, and cheer when she fires back at the voices on the laptop screen.
Palin watches Katie Couric ask her what she reads, then a clip of David Letterman laughing about how Palin’s non-answer was a ploy for the illiterate vote.
“Even in the post-election interview stage,” Katie Couric tells Letterman, “nobody has asked her: Why didn’t you answer that question?”
Palin shakes her head. “Because, Katie, you’re not the center of everybody’s universe. Maybe that’s why they didn’t think to ask that question.” The crowd goes wild.
The governor of Alaska skipped out on CPAC, giving a two-week notice of her non-participation two months after her office hinted that she’d be there. This decision dented her image in the halls of the Omni Shoreham Hotel — she tied Ron Paul for 13 percent support in a straw poll of potential 2012 presidential candidates — but a CNN poll released on Friday gave Palin an early lead among Republican voters who’ll chose the party’s next nominee. Twenty-nine percent of them supported Palin, to 26 percent for Mike Huckabee and 21 percent for Mitt Romney.
Of course, a CNN/USA Today poll taken exactly four years ago gave contender Rudy Giuliani a 34 percent to 29 percent lead over Sen. John McCain. The number is still illustrative. Just as the Republicans of four years ago concerned themselves with national security credibility and war-on-terror heroism, the Republicans of 2009 are looking for a candidate who will run as a diehard conservative while sticking it to the mainstream media. The narrative of Palin’s mistreatment by the press permeated CPAC, spilling over not only into Ziegler’s event, but to the “Conservatism 2.0″ conference held in the hotel by PajamasTV.com.
At the “Washington Tea Party,” a panel of conservative and liberal women modeled after “The View,” Democratic Fox News pundit Mary Ann Marsh fretted about the media’s treatment of female presidential candidates.
“After watching this last presidential campaign,” said Marsh. “I’m not sure how long it will be before a woman can run and win the presidency.” Several voices in the crowd shouted out “2012!”
“It’s worth debating,” said Marsh, “but for all the hue and cry over the treatment Sarah Palin got, Hillary Clinton got it just as bad.” The audience erupted with boos. “Well, we can disagree.”
Ziegler’s documentary is the purest distillation of this outrage. The long interview with Palin is a complement to footage of Obama voters incorrectly answering questions about their candidate and correctly answering questions about Palin and Republicans. The thesis, as Ziegler explained at the screening and as he’s explained elsewhere, is that liberal media bias turned a Republican star into a joke by lying and manipulating the public.
“The worst mistake the McCain campaign made,” said Ziegler, “was not making sure that every interview Sarah Palin did was live. Having her do taped interviews was the worst mistake. It gave the enemy the opportunity to edit her words, and it let them ask questions they wouldn’t have dared ask her on live TV, because if she got them right they’d look like morons.” The campaign should have booked Palin on Larry King Live. “Larry would have been slobbering over himself, as usual, but with a beautiful woman in front of him he would have been helpless. And she would have looked spectacular.”
The Sarah Palin who appears in Media Malpractice is a rorshach test. To reporters who had seen clips and talked to the filmmaker, the governor wallows in the lost campaign and comes off looking sore. To Ziegler, and to the people who watched the screening, she is a likeable, real person who’d be within her rights to hold grudges against those who destroyed her image.
“I saw that Katie Couric interview when it aired,” one man told Ziegler. “I had to turn it off… it was causing bile to rise up in my throat.”
In the film, Ziegler argues that Couric was unfair to Palin in the series of interviews she held with the governor during the campaign by “taking off the table” Roe vs. Wade and asking Palin to name another Supreme Court decision. In the Q&A Ziegler pondered what it meant that Joe Biden, given the same question, had handled it more adroitly. “Joe Biden had so many other gaffes in the campaign that he could have said anything and it wouldn’t have mattered.”
As this argument goes, no candidate could have fared better than Palin. Any conservative who runs for high office will be pummeled by a liberal press that loads its questions. In the Palin interview, Zeigler explains that the media’s questions are so slanted that conservatives must think through every trap and every trick, and even that little pause can make them look ill-informed.
“What would have happened if Barack Obama had been asked the question, “‘What do you read?’” asked Zeigler after the screening. “Would they have gone after Obama if he took six seconds to think about it? No, the question wouldn’t have even been asked. [Couric] would have been fired for being a racist.”
Late into the Media Malpractice interview of Palin, Ziegler asks whether the treatment of Caroline Kennedy by the political press reflected a class bias; Palin partially agrees that it does. But in the weeks after the Ziegler-Palin conversation, Kennedy was pilloried in the media for perceived elitism, for not voting in multiple elections, and for saying “you know” to fill gaps in her conversations. She tumbled in public opinion polls and lost her shot at New York’s open Senate seat — if she ever had one.
“Certainly, Kennedy did get some criticism,” said Ziegler after the screening. “You should compare it not to Sarah Palin, but to the what the reaction would have been if she’d been a conservative. I think it’s pretty clear.”
As Ziegler walked out of the screening, to a table where copies of the film were selling two for $20 (”our send one to a liberal campaign”) TWI asked Ziegler if he felt the documentary had helped or hurt Palin’s chances for 2012. “I know I didn’t hurt her image,” said Ziegler. “I thought she was very good. You don’t think she was good in the interview?” No matter how the rest of the press interprets the interview, the lesson that conservatives need to take on the press and be ready for its bias is indelible.”
“George W. Bush decided not to fight back, and look what happened to him. He crawled up into the fetal position the moment Katrina hit and from then on.”
JOHN ZIEGLER ON "MORNING JOE" TALKING ABOUT HIS PRO-OBAMA/ANTI-PALIN DOCUMENTARY.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I stopped watching MSNBC long ago as all it did was make me sick to my stomach. I stopped before Sarah came on the scene so I can't personally account for how they treated her, and only know from what I have read online and seen in clips such as this. But there is no doubt MSNBC was the WORST CULPRIT when it came to OBAMA-LOVE and HILLARY-HATE, and THE WORST HATE OF ALL FOR SARAH!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
