Thursday, September 04, 2008

At the risk of sounding boastful, I have to say that I saw this coming. Like the weather channel tracking a storm across the Atlantic, for the past 5 days I saw this one brewing and indeed Hurricane Sarah hit Minnesota last night with a fury that has the Left scrambling to gather up the debris that was once a brutal assault on a fine woman.

I had images of McCain behind the scenes struggling to hold his running mate back as she lunged repeatedly at her critics. Well, last night he finally turned her loose and effectively put the Left on notice…underestimate this woman at your own peril.

Before the speech, I heard the campaign say they weren’t going to send Palin out as the attack dog. Bull. I didn’t believe that for a second. Her friends call her “Sarah Barracuda”. She took on a big-shot Republican establishment and unseated a fat-cat Republican incumbent Governor. She fires incompetent staff faster than Donald Trump. She sold the ex-governor’s private jet on eBay! This woman is anything but soft and I knew what was going to happen last night, especially after the past few days of relentless attacks against her from so many different directions. There was blood in the water, and something told me Palin was itching to get into the fight. And fight she did.

She started off with the needed introductions. She told America about her background, introduced her family, and painted the picture of a typical small town family with typical small town problems. It was similar to Michelle Obama’s speech with one resounding difference. Palin didn’t just originate from small town America, she still lives it today. It may not seem like much, but this will play very well across middle America.

Then she got into her record. She did okay, just okay. I say that because I think she should have devoted more time there. Yes, she mentioned her many vetoes, cutting pork barrels, cutting taxes, expanding energy, and fighting corruption. But she missed a few things like resigning as Oil/Gas commissioner to protest ongoing corruption that the good ‘ol boys refused to tackle. She didn’t tell us that lobbyists are banned from her office. She didn’t tell us about working with Canadian officials on energy issues (foreign policy experience?). I think she could’ve toned down the attacks and spoke about these things a bit more. That’s my only criticism.

Then came the attacks. Palin looked like a woman whose career and family had been dragged through the mud for 5 days. You could almost see her eagerness to fight back. She soaked up the energy from the crowd and she launched into the Left like – as one Alaska voter put it – a “moose going after a cabbage”, or more accurately, a barracuda going after a school of goldfish, an Alaskan grizzly bear defending her cubs. Her message was clear to me…she wasn’t going to take this mess lying down.

For perspective, this appeared in the New York Times yesterday: “They have a tradition of nominating fun, bantamweight cheerleaders from the west.”

For more perspective, here is just a sample of some of the things I’ve read in the media: “inbred hick...whoring her kids out for political purposes…trophy VP to go with a trophy wife…bimbo alert…nazi sympathizer…does McCain think the stewardess will defend us from the terrorists?”

I wonder if anyone in the media had this thought after last night…”I fear we have awakened a hibernating bear and filled her with a great resolve.”

Considering the treatment she’s received since her nomination, I was more than willing to allow Palin to get away with some low blows. She earned it. But, surprisingly, there weren’t many. She didn’t go after Michelle and she didn’t launch any inappropriate personal attacks on Obama. She did jab him on his lack of humility and even more on his lack of legislative accomplishment and she did it with humor and a different non-Washington style. She did it with a smile and a chuckle and it was very effective. And she sure went after him on policy. She returned fire like the expert marksman that she is, and scored a direct hit. She said of McCain: “He’s not looking for a fight, but he sure won’t back down from one.” Ditto for Palin.

She also went after the Left wing media, Joe Biden and Harry Reid; and when she finished she seemed to have that “anyone else want a piece of me” look in her eyes. Something tells me no one did, me included. For a brief second, I almost felt the need to step in and pull her off of these poor guys…almost. I haven’t seen a political beating like that since Cheney debated Edwards in ’04. If he didn’t deserve it, you would feel some sympathy for him.

One pundit this morning called it mean-spirited. Mean-spirited? Like attacking a woman’s family, her motherhood, her career, the small town that she led, the state that she governed and even suggesting she had an affair with one of her husband’s friends? Is that what is meant by mean-spirited? No, Palin’s speech wasn’t mean-spirited, it was retaliation. If Obama’s campaign can mock her for being a small-town hick mayor, then she can certainly mock him for being a pompous cosmopolitan fake. Now we’ll see if he can take it as well as he dishes it out.

She made it clear that she was the type of person who would fight for her constituents, and she demonstrated it by fighting back against the establishment whose survival depends on keeping her out of Washington. So much for the McCain-has-no-judgment argument. She made him look like a genius.

The gaffe of the night came from Harry Reid, who responded by saying Palin was shrill. Shrill? Is he serious? Someone on Reid’s staff should have told him that you don’t use that word when describing a woman. You may as well say she was bitchy, or had a nice butt. Women are offended by the word shrill. It’s a demeaning reference to the apron-wearing, Betty Crocker days of the 1950s when the little lady was expected to keep her mouth shut and only speak when spoken to. It’s akin to referring to an African-American as “boy”, an incredible insult that only those who’ve been the target of it can understand. Not a bright move on Harry Reid’s part. Pardon the brief digression.

Last night, Palin stepped into a political pressure cooker and performed brilliantly, looking comfortable and seasoned. She had poise and composure, wit and charm. She had the charisma without the arrogance. She had the eloquence with a small town backwoods Alaskan accent. She appeared classy without looking elitist. She was inspiring without appearing or behaving like royalty. She isn’t representing middle America, she IS middle America. The energy and electricity between her and the crowd was symbiotic, they seemed to feed off of each other. That stage was her comfort zone, and she relished in the pressure of the moment. She was Joe Montana in heels. But more than that, she’s the anti-Obama, the kryptonite to his superman persona, delivering a speech that was every bit as exciting and uplifting without making people feel as though they should apologize for their country. Dare I say, she looked like a young, female Ronald Reagan…funny, charming, tough, likable and gravitational. There is no better way to charge up the conservative base and maybe even bring along a few independents and Reagan-crats. And there is no better way to scare the pants off the Left, the liberal media and the Washington elites.

In their mind, this woman must be destroyed before she gets to Washington, especially if she’s coming behind John McCain and his army of reform. As I write this, the liberals are behaving in a way that epitomizes panic. Those two have just turned on the kitchen light and have the Washington bureaucrats scrambling like cockroaches. Make no mistake, the cockroaches will regroup. They have no intention of releasing their grip on Washington without a fight. This campaign is about to get very, very ugly.

But for now, I take my hat off to Sarah Palin. Job well done!


Dan Trabue said...

In their mind, this woman must be destroyed before she gets to Washington, especially if she’s coming behind John McCain and his army of reform. As I write this, the liberals are behaving in a way that epitomizes panic.

Wow. Interesting.

I know no "liberals" that fit that description. We're mostly laughing at McCain's choice, thinking that it's only going to further marginalize him.

And McCain's "army of reform"???

The team that is going to continue the Bush policies? Doing more of the same is not "reform."

Sounds like you listened too closely and actually believed the false charges leveled last night by the GOPs.

There is no conspiracy to "destroy" Palin. Investigating an unknown entity is what a good media SHOULD do in this situation. Investigation does not equal "destroy" although uncovering her positions and beliefs (AIP? "On a mission from God"?) may well further undo the McCain campaign, but that's the way it goes.

Anonymous said...


Go ahead and hit all of the talking points that probably hit your e-mail in box this morning. Don't forget to mention that somebody else wrote her speech.

The media has asked more questions about Palin in 5 days than they have asked about Obama in 19 months.

So make sure you get out there and spin a little and laugh a little. Do whatever you have to do to make yourself feel better about that empty suit that your party has nominated for the Presidency.


Dan Trabue said...

Sorry to disappoint but these are only my own opinions, for what they're worth. I happen to think that it sounds a bit paranoid and nutty to suggest that "The Media" is out to destroy her. Especially because she's a woman??

Obama's record is there for everyone to see. His platform has been at his website for months now and is pretty detailed and well-thought-out, as campaign platforms have gone.

The thing is, the people of the US are tired of the politics of division and destruction. McCain is NOT a war-loving idiot. He is a man whose record and platform is more of the same as Bush's, with some differences.

Obama is NOT an empty suit nor a communist, nor a "celebrity." He is a person with real grassroots experience in bringing people together, he is an American with plans for change from what the Bush policy has been for the last eight years, he is an inspiring, flawed human being who is making history and who will be an inspiring and flawed president.

We don't need to demonize the Other. Merely disagreeing with their policies will suffice.

As to the media asking questions: How long until we get to see the transcripts of sermons from 20 years of her church attendance? I noticed that her church has removed those (they were formerly available).

Will the Religious Right be clamoring to know all about her pastor and his (weird, I'm sure - knowing Pentecostals as I do) sermons? Someone obviously did so for Obama's pastor, are you advocating equal treatment for Palin?

And how about her husband's years in the secessionist AIP? The group whose founder said:

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

Will the Right denigrate him as they denigrated Reverend Wright?

These are reasonable, responsible questions for the media to ask, wouldn't you agree (at least about the AIP)?

Allison said...

I watched Sarah Palin's speech last night, and while I think she did a good job of holding her own, I thought that she lacked substance and instead did a lot of riling up in order to distract from the real issues. That's really all I have to say about it.



OUR DoNkEy's in a head-long panic. Just a 'hick-town' mayor? Well, not exactly.

Gov Sarah Palin is a she-bear with cubs, so watch out! The Independents like her, women too...(and that is troubling.)

So, what's our strategy now? "This ain't good" growled an old party-boss; That Woman Is Stealing Our Thunder!

Nancy Pelosi is crying...she's shaking in her Gucci heels!

Good Grief...TWO REFORMERS! Tough old Sen McCain & Governor Palin heading for D.C. spells Big Trouble Ahead. Those two are swiping our CHANGE Buttons!
P.S. to Obama...soon, you'll have nothing to your office, and patch through to George'll need some more of that good-old 'Smear Money'...We're losing the Free-thinkers and Independents!

These People Are Not Bush/Cheney...
They Fight Back!

(print) reb

Dan Trabue said...

Panic? Stealing thunder? Crying?


With a 6-9% lead??

This is too funny! Where do you all get this - are you just making it up or have you actually read something to make you think this?

How about a source instead of desperate-sounding wishful thinking?

John Washburn said...


So calling her a "bantamweight cheerleader" is your idea of the media investigating a candidate?

What about the headline "babies, lies and scandal"?

And this same media began to immediately hurl charges of inexperience her way, while virtually ignoring Obama's similar lack of experience. No one has asked this man a tough question except for Rick Warren, and we saw how that turned out.

I don't have a problem with reporters asking honest questions: Tell us about the tax cuts in Alaska? Why did you resign as Oil/Gas commissioner? Did you abuse your power when you fired your DPS chief?

I don't have a problem with questioning her experience, as long as those same questions swing BOTH ways.

But that's not what's happening here, Dan, and you know it. Instead, the media is crawling around Wasilla begging the people for any little crumb of dirt they can throw their way. That's not honest journalism.

No one...NO ONE has answered the question of why Barack Obama, a 4th year Senator with no executive experience is qualified to be President, yet a female Governor who has run both a city and a state is NOT qualified to be Vice President. And maybe no one has answered it because no one is asking it except some part-time physician blogger that nobody reads. There's something wrong with that.

And nobody asked Obama why he befriended a domestic terrorist despite knowing who the man was and what the man did in his past. Why?

There's a difference between honest journalism and writing a hit piece. The credibility of America's media is GONE. That's bad for this country.


Want a source, sonny? Check out my Links; then check the national polls one week from today. Check O'Reilly's Interview with your 'savior' on Moday & Tuesday.

Straight Talk Trumps ObamaMania when the chips are down. Your hot-air cushion has a leak. reb

Anonymous said...


I heard part of the interview on the radio this morning. It sounded like Obama was having a hard time getting a word in edgewise. But that's O'Reilly for you. You think he's wonderful but I know he is culturally irrelevant. Talk about Jessica's Law all you want. That was in 2005. What have you done for us lately Bill?

He is irrelevant b/c he persuades no one who isn't already persuaded.
His demographics are that the median age of his viewers is 71. Keith Olbermannn's median age is 59. Younger viewers watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin's "Thanks but no thanks" portion of her speech was pure fantasy. She has been very successful in obtaining federal money for her city and later her state. Nothing wrong w/ that. In fact, that is what serves an elected official's constituents.

Misrepresenting yourself to th eworld about doing so, well I view that as problematic. Sarah Palin backed the Gravina Island Bridge all the way until she cancelled the projected two years afte congress scrapped the eramarks for it. And, Alaska got to keep the alloctaed funds.

Meanwhile, running for governor on a plank that advocated teaching Creationism in th eAlaska public schools is problematic for me also.



John Washburn said...

Loop, there are a lot of mistruths out there about Palin, be very careful what you hear and accept as fact. To clear the record, this from the AP:

"Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members. She has kept this pledge, according to the Associated Press.

"Palin has spoken in favor of classroom discussions of creationism, in some cases. “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum,” Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview."

John Washburn said...

Loop, regarding the Bridge to nowhere. Palin's supposed "support" for it came during her campaign for Governor.

"I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later."

A mediocre endorsement at best, interpreted as full "support" by her critics.

She explains that once she got into office she scrutinized cost-benefit analysis of multiple infrastructure projects and determined the bridge to be wasteful. Granted, Congress had already removed the earmark but still sent Alaska a portion of the money as standard federal aid - not necessarily pork barrel money - to improve the state's infrastructure, as they do with all states. The money was spent on more beneficial projects.

Read this how you want, but my simplistic view tells me that if she supported the bridge she would have spent the money on the bridge.

Just my thoughts

Dan Trabue said...

Loop, there are a lot of mistruths out there about Palin, be very careful what you hear and accept as fact.

In truth, there is a lot that is not known about Palin yet. We all would do well to be careful what we hear and accept as fact, right?

If it turns out that she has sympathies for a group that hates the US gov't and wants to secede from it, then that needs to be investigated, seems to me. Now, I'm not advocating guilt by association (as many have done unapologetically with Sen. Obama and his acquaintances), but I'm fine with asking pointed questions and investigating the answers.

Certainly, we all ought not automatically believe every negative-sounding bit of information that pops up about Palin in these first few days of getting to know her. But it is just as true that we ought not accept every bit of positive spin they offer on her, either.

That would seem prudent to me.

John Washburn said...

Dan, the AIP rumor is also false, just another example of media missing the mark.

Palin was never a member of the AIP, as the party's current chairman recently announced. She has been a registered republican her entire adult life. Her husband, Todd, was a member for a brief time but switched his affiliation to independent in the late 1990s.

It's pretty sad that I have to do this stuff. The MSM should be issuing corrections whenever they're wrong.

Anonymous said...

Left-wing 'Grassroots' Attack Dogs like novice Loop Garoo are ever-ready with pathetic, demeaning ridicule of anything that startles them.

Like Sarah Palin, or Commentator Bill O'Reilly...classic examples.

Palin, is a totally new experience from our Alaskan Final-Frontier, with small-town values. The Left is unsure, a bit shakey of just how to smear this bold lady governor; but she's a she-bear with cubs. Watch out!
The Left of Center Laughs, but it's a nervous chuckle, hiding apprehension. (There's nothing to fear, but fear itself.)

O'Reilly is a moderate sounding fellow, that invites Left & Right to his show. Hillary did quite well, no crude insults by Mr "O".
(He's a gentleman).

He is unafraid of Maher, or Colbert, Letterman Leno or Al Franken (they've all tried him).

Now, Rock-star Obama-man will have his shot, after a long, cautious delay. There will be no smear, no foul tricks, like what MoveOn (Soros) tried and failed with Gen Petraeus Ad last September, in the NY Times Rag. Just straight talk; with probing questions. The whole nation will see it; Huge ratings, Loop. Does that really bother you?

Straight talk baffles 'em, spins them out of control, where smear & ridicule is unacceptable, and comparison is often shunned.

These sad folks that lay claim to a "liberal" lable are conditioned to react negatively to any perceived threat, and it's sad to behold. It's the Hate-Blogs that promote this mass-delusion. You'll see.

IF you wish to fill a sponge-like mind with niggling negativity, then go where the professionals MovOnDotOrg, DailyKos, HuffingtonPost,CodePink,UFPJ, or
P-Diddle U. These are the True Masters of Hate & Smear, and they get the attention of the everlovin' MainStreamMedia. Study hard under these groups, develop your own style. But first, you must become an Under-Study; learn all the key words & 'talking-points', and ten second sound-bytes. "Failed Bush Policy" & "Four-More-Years" etc & 'Bush Clone' are all retreads! Be an Original; be ever-ready for the Soros/Pavlov tinkling bell!

Then, go for your Gilded Certificate as a "Qualified Attack Puppy" in the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy World! You Will Always Start From The Bottom-Up, in Sleazeville, USA. Remember the Rule...'Feed yer Donkey'...Credit Cards Accepted. Good Luck! reb

Anonymous said...


I don't need luck when it comes to Bill O'Reilly. I admire the guy for being successful in selling products to guys like you who watch him. That does not make him a great thinker.

Now everyone Google "Anne Kilkenney and Sarah Palin." Find out all about Sarah Barracuda from one who knows her well.

Spin it any way you want reb. But Sarah Palin is what she is and although the ability to field dress amosse is admirable, the rest of what you seem to admire is where she's from and smoke and mirrors.


Dan Trabue said...

the AIP rumor is also false, just another example of media missing the mark.

I'm not sure that your facts are correct. And the mainstream media IS doing its job: It's researching into this allegation and printing what news it finds. That's the job.

And the latest news reports are as follows:

1. Todd Palin was a member of AIP from 1995-2002.

2. The AIP participated in a conference of secessionist movements held in Vermont in 2006. "The First North American Secessionist Convention," was the official title. Attendees included the neo-confederate League of the South, messianic Christian Exodus and the libertarian New State Project.

3. In her 2008 address, Palin said the AIP "plays an important role in our state's politics."

Here's the source for that, which includes video of Palin saying exactly the above.

With Palin saying these sorts of things, speaking positively of the AIP, which has associated with some questionable types and whose founder apparently said:

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

Coming from the horse's mouth, I would hope that you would agree that it is not an example of "the media missing the mark" but of reasonable questions being raised about legitimate concerns.

Surely you don't think we ought to ignore this? And I wonder what your source is (you offered none) for claiming so confidently that the AIP rumor is false? Says who?

Has Palin addressed this?

And what about the attempted book banning? Ought we ignore that or is it okay - GOOD, even - for the media to investigate that?

You sound too eager to embrace a virtual unknown and too eager to assume any allegation is false.

Anonymous said...


Perhaps it is the secular humanist in me but Sarah Palin and people like, her--to a lesser degree George W. Bush--make me very uneasy. That I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state is not even particualrly relevant here.

I do not beleive that Creationism is rational. I seem to recall only a week ago, commenting in another forum that I had watched "Inherit the Wind" last Saturday night but given Gov. Palin's beliefs, the play stuck w/ me throughout all last week.

When someone, like Gov. Palin, exhorts others to perform b/c "it is God's will" I realize that such a person is experiencing a very different reality from mine. A reality fraught w/ certitude when inquiry is necessary; and ultimately a reality that brooks no deviation from conformity.

I know that you and I are similar in that we distrust and somnetimes detest those who are disingenuous; those who say one thing, but whose actions have been exactly the opposite.

Read Anne Kilkenney's letter about Sarah Palin. Throughout her political career, Sarah Palin has done a masterful job in funneling money from Washington to her town and later her state. This is what we expect from our politicians as much as some of us may decry government spending.

But then to stand b/f her party, the nation, and the world and basically misrepresent herself in this regard, just sends me a message that I cannot trust this person any farther than I can throw a cheesecake underwater.

That is on top of the fact that Sarah Palin must believe in Bishop Usher's chronology.

I think Srah Palin was a very bad vice presidential choice. Any of the other candidates such as Tim Pawlenty, would have been better w/ the possible exception of Mitt Romney. As talented as Mitt Romney is, his religion would have been a factor w/ some Christians who consider the LDS a cult.



Anonymous said...

Governor Sarah Palin is what she is alright, and the comparison with corrupt Chicago Politics is a breath of fresh air. Google some fraudulent Illinois/Wisconsin collaboration in Voting The Graveyards, Unions "rolling out the beer barrels" etc. That's the Heart & Soul of Chicago Politics.
Minor Parties hoping to secede from the country is as old as our nation, long before Alaska was a state. New Hamphire, Maine are examples. Some Southern States hoping to break away from the "Industrial North" before the Civil War, etc

Dan & Loop's PANIC is understandable...Obama is losing his rock-star image. Obama's cut-throat politics knocked off Alice Palmer & Hillary Clinton. That Lady from Alaska won't be so easy.

She's shaking your partisan cage, and we have less than two months, so keep digging through your trash bins gentlemen.

So far, you've got nothing.

Both of you will be watching Mr O'Reilly & Mr Obama on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday (and do try to ignore those commercials) you are so easily sold a "bill of goods".


John Washburn said...

Loop, but you have no problem trusting Obama? A product of the Chicago-Daly politcs machine? Friend of Bill Ayers. What?

You've discovered someone who doesn't like Palin and wrote a letter about her. Congrats. Let me assure you there are many more out there. Palin has made plenty of enemies in the status quo crowd.

I don't believe Palin ever represented herself as someone who never accepted money from Washington. Where are you getting that? She does claim to veto excessive spending, balance the budget and promote fiscal responsibility. The record clearly supports her on that.

You seem hung up on the "thanks but no thanks" line, as though she is being completely dishonest. The fact is that after Washington sent Alaska its infrastructure money, proponents of the bridge continued to press her to put that money into the bridge. So she finally, and officially, killed the project.

So, I'll concede that "thanks but not thanks" is a bit theatric. Perhaps she should instead say "I killed the bridge to nowhere". But aren't we splitting hairs here? And is there really much difference in the two lines? The simple fact is that when faced with the option of spending federal taxpayer dollars on a wasteful unnecessary project she said "no"

I think Palin has been unfairly treated, mainly because I don't see anyone digging in Obama's past like this. Have you researched how much earmark spending Obama is responsible for? If you truly have a problem with Palin's record, then you will be shocked at what you find in Obama's

John Washburn said...


Here is a link:

And remember who you are talking to. I don't think secession is illegal. I've said that before, so any state that wants to do this has my best wishes. People of America DO have the option of whether or not they are part of this country. It's not as bad as, say, bombing the NYC police headquarters.

But something else interests me. You are concerned about a candidate's spouse who was part of an obscure political party 13 years who, who severed ties with that party 6 years ago, long before the candidate was a candidate. That disturbs you.

But you're okay with a candidate (not spouse) who was a member of a radical church and personal friends with the church's pastor for over 20 years, only severing ties with him this year during his campaign in a clearly political move. And this same candidate is also personal friends with a known unremorseful domestic terrorist. That's okay with you.

Dan Trabue said...

I don't think Obama's church is radical. I think his pastor made some hyperbolic statements and if he were running, I probably wouldn't vote for him.

But his church is not that different than my church and I think they're radical only in the good sense of being radical Christians - getting to the root of Christianity. Which is not to say that I don't disagree with some of Wright's statements - I clearly do. But not nearly as much as I disagree with many other pastors' statements.

Beyond that, I'm okay with disagreeing with fellow believers. I don't think that everyone has to agree with me to be part of my church family.

As to the "personal friends" with a domestic terrorist, I'd say that seems to be stretching the reality of the situation. He KNEW Ayers. That is not to say that there was anything unethical in Obama having him as an acquaintance.

I have acquaintances with people who may have behaved wrongly in the past, too. Doesn't mean that I endorse their misbehavior.

Dan Trabue said...

As to your AIP link, I'm sorry but I'm not getting your point. I didn't SAY that she was an AIP member. I quoted the article that said her husband was until recently and that she took part in some of their conferences.

Again, I would HOPE that you don't think reporting on this real news bit is an example of the media doing anything other than their job.

I'm with you in that I don't necessarily consider thinking about seceding from the US a moral wrong, but I DO think it is very relevant to running for the office of Vice President and that the media has an obligation to find out more about it and report it.

I'd hope you would agree.


Choice, that's the word. I choose CNN's Lou Dobbs on Immigration Reform; most popular Fox News with
Britt Hume, Sheppard Smith, and John Gibson's 'Fair & Balanced' approach.

Keith Olberman (MSNBC) & CNN's Cafferty are obvious 'Hate Bush' Looney-Tunes, and lack credibility.

We all must choose who to trust.


John Washburn said...

I don't have a problem with reporting news. My problem - and my initial complaint - was that this report was inaccurate. This particular reporter said that Palin was once a member of the AIP. That, of course, was wrong. So at best this was irresponsible journalism, at worst a deliberate smear.

Everyone makes mistakes. But I think if this were a story on Obama the sources would have been double and triple checked prior to publication, if it were published at all. With Palin, there seems to be this rush to find anything negative about her and immediately disperse it to the country without confirming the accuracy. Many people feel the same, which is why there is such a backlash against the media right now

Dan Trabue said...

Not MY initial comment here about the AIP. You had said:

there are a lot of mistruths out there about Palin, be very careful what you hear and accept as fact.

And I responded that you were correct, that we ought not blindly accept each rumor as fact, BUT that we also ought not blindly accept each spin from the Palin camp as fact either. I went on to say that "If it turns out that she has sympathies for a group that hates the US gov't and wants to secede from it, then that needs to be investigated, seems to me."

You responded by claiming flat out that the "AIP rumor is false." I never trotted out an AIP rumor, but rather I reported on the facts as we know them thus far. I've never heard or read the report that she was a member of the AIP, although I can see how it may have been started.

So, it appears that we agree that it is valid to report the news that her husband was an AIP member and that she attended some of their meetings and spoke positively about their role in Alaska. That's good, that's all I'm saying.

Anonymous said...


The byline that Sarah Palin has been unfairly treated by the nedia is just the good old GOP being reactionary as the press, quite frequently, deservedly so, is an easy target.

Here we have a candidate about whom few, if any of us, had ever heard. In two months she could be VP of the most powerful nation on earth and w/ a 72 year old president, she could be president in a minute.

It is only natural that the media and all of us want to find out about her. It is not as if she has been in the public eye, except in Alaska.

Meanwhile, I would not dismiss Anne Kilkeeney as someone who merely "doesn't like Palin." Maybe she doesn't but I thought her letter was fairly objective.

Meanwhile, you have to admit that Barrack Obama has been scrutinized to the extent that people are looking up his fundament w/ a microscope.

Then she have people like our mutual acquaintence, SH, who is willing to pass on any piece of spite or garbage about him w/o checking its provenance.

I think we can agree that people are voting for president not VP. Nevertheless, McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate, in my opinion, reveals a weakness in his personality. The best evidence suggests that this was a decision that at worst was made precipitiously and at best was made w/o a thorough investigation.

I know many people think that Sarah Palin is wonderful. At this point, all of them are Republicans.
We will see how she plays w/ the swing voters.

I do not think it reasonable to expect that women who supported Hillary Clinton will flock to her.




Keep it up, guys. The more you slam and smear this dynamic lady from the North Country, the more absurd and partisan you appear.

Goveror Sarah, One heart-beat away from the Presidency! O-M-G !

Think about this for a minute, fellows, it should scare the whine out of any citizen that loves this nation:

Nancy Pelosi is Only Two Heartbeats
Away From The Oval Office...and that should scare the fat off a farmer's prime hog! reb

Dan Trabue said...

What slam? What smear?

You're right on one point: The more one misrepresents reality in hopes of trying to generate partisan support, the more absurd and partisan one appears.

Thanks for modeling that for us, Reb.



You were boasting about that 6-9 Obama Lead in the National Polls just a few days ago. The Lefty Blogs like DailyKos, MediaMatters, Huff Post, Code Pink, et al It's SLAM & SMEAR Gov Sarah's Family, and you and Loop Garoo know it. It's what they do with your donations.
Where's Your Long-winded Tirades, and where are the double/triple comments?They are missing...

I believe you're running out of Hot-air Dan, as the Right-Wing builds momentum. Now, That's an Illustration of Real Panic, ala Reid/Pelosi!

Watch the National Polls. reb

Dan Trabue said...


You're a bit of a loon, brudda.

Yes, for almost a week now, McCain has inched up and taken a lead in polls that Obama has had locked up for eight months.

Now, if McCain maintains a lead in the polls for two more months AND on election day snags a win, I will be concerned.

I will note that as of now, it's too close to call, but it appears Obama maintains a slight lead on electoral votes and McCain's current 1-3% lead is within the margin of error.

Now, how about addressing my questions? WHAT slam? WHAT smear?

Reporting facts is a slam or a smear only in the desperate world of Republicans, I'd suggest. Engaging in smears and slams is also more within their domain and milieu.


You will not find slam & smear here; go to DailyKos, send 'em Fifty Bucks, and you too can easily
qualify for membership. MoveOnDotTrash is another. reb