Palin’s Pregnancy Hoax
From Andrew Sullivan today in response to this: “Okay, a few more words. First of all, the reason the media “still won’t touch” this story is that there is no story;”
It is, moreover, not the press’s responsibility to protect public figures from questions that relate to their character, veracity and judgment. It is the public official’s responsibility to clear any questions up, especially if they have the evidence to do so readily at hand. She cannot claim privacy when she has brandished her infant as a political tool and used him as her building bloc for appealing to the Christianist base. Palin is also, as we can see, pathological in her deceit and delusions. Under these cricumstances, what might seem inappropriate for other politicians is highly relevant here. As I said, until we get any actual evidence Palin should be given the benefit of the doubt. But doubt remains. That is Palin’s responsibility – not the press’s.
I might add that simply calling questions “absolutely freaking ridiculous” is not an argument.
This statement actually applies equally to a lot of Palin lies. It isn’t up to the media to protect her. It’s up to the media to report the facts and if she can refute those, she should. Otherwise, she needs to quit whining.
I wish the media gave equal opportuniy “fact reporting” effort against Obama! If Palin tried to prove wrong every accusation against her, they could all be false, and yet she wouldn’t have time. What is Palin’s approval rating in her own state again? In the state where they don’t have to take other’s word for what she’s like?
also about “I might add that simply calling questions “absolutely freaking ridiculous” is not an argument.”
If it’s true that the question is ridiculous, then no argument is necessary. If the question is reasonable and relevant, then you lack an argument where you should have one.
She won’t spend any time trying to prove any of the accusations untrue because she’s aware they aren’t untrue. It would be a waste of her time.
I might add that his assertion the Governor is “pathological in her deceit and delusions” is pure dribble. Worse than that, it’s dribble mixed with baby food from someone who cries like a baby. Where does this guy come off making clinical demonstrative statements about a woman he hardly knows? Is there a some clinical psychologist that has examined and rendered a diagnosis about the Governor? No, this is pure hate.
Rest assured the Governor has shown and will continue to show her true grit, and all of these baseless, petty, nasty, crude, brutish, pornographic whimperings will blow away like chaff in the wind.
It’s easy to call her a liar when she lies about everything and it’s easily provable. “I said thanks but no thanks,” when in fact she campaigned for the bridge to nowhere, for instance. She’s a liar because a lot of what she says is patently untrue. And the word you are looking for is drivel. It’s what comes out of Governor Gumps blather hole every time she opens it.
Ah no. I meant dribble and that is what I wrote. Look up the word if you don’t believe me. It’s related to drool, which is what the Sarahaters do whenever they think there is some inconsistency in what the Governor has said. The latest is the profoundly tedious and ill-reasoned piece by your hero Andrew Sullivan about the bandage on the Governor’s hand. What an utter waste of words. But what it reveals is something more profound, which is a lack of simple common sense. That the Governor instructed people not to say anything about her accident has no bearing on whether the story actually gets outs. But A. Sullivan is so blinded by some kind of love-hate distance relationship with the Governor that he can’t see that simple proposition and lists is along with all the other so-called “lies.” As for the bridge to nowhere, I’ve already commented on that.
Pianopeck: Obviously you haven’t been watching Faux News’ “Fair and Balanced” entertainment enough. They engage in a lot of “effort against Obama”.
Indeed, Palin spends so much time contacting PEOPLE magazine, writing personal diatribes on her state public relations website castigating bloggers, denying that her one-time prospective son-in-law stayed at the Palin house for several months, denying that either her daughter or the same prospective son-in-law dropped out of school (when the school officials verified that enrollment non-status), lying abou t her second daughter’s presence at Yankee Stadium, lying about her second daughter’s willingness to engage in sex (she suggested her second daughter was complicit and consenting in a sexual relationship with an adult when she used the phrase “statutory rape”)…that it’s a wonder that she successfully performed any more than speechifying or presentation duties, or sponsored any new legislation through the state house and senate during session.
Oh, that last part? She didn’t. She wasted too much time blitherating to get her personally sponsored bills to committee, for them to get out of committee before the state legislative session ended. Oh, except for getting the state dog named.
Pelinore, you shouldn’t complain quite so vociferously about a person’s opinion about Governor Palin.
You’re suggesting that people cannot voice their opinion publicly if it’s a negative opinion about a politician, and that they cannot use their professional expertise or seek the opinion of a professional expert in a given field for THEIR opinion on a given matter, and blog it.
W-r-o-n-g. That would be infringement of one’s right to free speech.
Which, in essence, you’re saying free speech is OK if you’re a Republican, also known as IOKIYAR.
If you want real hate, go to the place I suggested Pianopeck go, to Faux News, where you can weigh in with your opinion about the hate the “anchors” and talk show hosts spew as they bloviate in some alternate reality about future attacks on America (they want one, to prove some twisted point), our current President (they whine about his hole-y shoes, his liking for mustard, hamburgers, and ice cream, his diplomatic trips abroad, his trips to Camp David…you name it, they complain about it), the upcoming Census-taking, the Edward M. Kennedy National Service Act, Senator Kennedy’s sponsorship of the national health care bill and the public option…you name it, they complaint about it.
The fact is that Sarah Palin is a pathological and compulsive liar.
This is not questionable anymore. Facts are stubborn things and Palin has a long list of proven lies.
Everything – again, everything – she says or does must be questioned.
Any candidate for high office should be scrutinized thoroughly. But have you ever asked yourself why the media continues to attack her? And please, there are too many examples of media (both major and internet) fabrications about her that your starting point should be: I don’t believe anything I read about what the media says about the Governor. Have you ever asked yourself why people make up stories about her and major media like MSNBC or CNN propogate the fictions?
I guess I wonder too whether you have ever met the Governor, whether you’ve met anyone that interacts with her on a regular basis. Making claims about a pathology are diagnostic claims. Are you a qualified pscychologist to make such a diagnosis? These are words designed to occupy the field of discussion — they have no other purpose than to stop debate. If anything is pathological it is the fear/hate/obsession of people like Andrew Sullivan who spend hours working up a nonsensical piece about what the Governor said about the bandage on her injury at the McCain ranch.
The point is she even lies when there’s no fucking reason to lie. She just does it reflexively. That’s fucking crazy. You don’t actually have to meet governor fembot to ferret out her lies because she delivers them with such abandon. A third grader could parse her bullshit.
The Governor is not a pathological and compulsive liar. The media became frenzied because of their fear of her, made up stories about her (like M. Eisenstadt and others) and passed this off to the public. They were so afraid of her charisma and conservative values that they continued to attack her 8 months after she lost with John McCain. If you want to talk about bizarre behavior it is the media’s obsession with her that is bizarre.
As for freedom of speech, if you read the blog on “The Cowardly Letterman” you would see the position on free speech. What continues to baffle me is that many of the attacks on the Governor are sexist or misogynist yet some women seem incapable of seeing that the bigger problem is not whether the Governor is successful in politics but the whether womanity and feminism are being attacked.
Ah, no. You meant drivel, but your vocab isn’t up to par. Reason isn’t part of your world, so how about don’t try.
You have revealed more than you think with this comment. And it explains a lot. It explains why in fact you feel so absolutely sure that someone is a liar though you’ve never met the person, never met people in Alaska who’ve directly interacted with her, and cannot point to one instance in which the alleged “liar” admitted to the untruth. (Unlike the instance of M. Eisenstadt who admitted to the “Africa is a country” fabrication.) Your approach to people you don’t agree with seems consistent: you claim almost divine-like knowledge about what exactly they are thinking when they speak or write. Your starting point is not innocent before proven guilty, but guilty because of the absolute convinction in your heart of your own intellectual power. That certainly is not the standard we bring to our court system, and I rather pity you if that is the standard you bring to your personal relationships. Do you find yourself calling people liars in your own circles?
You said I meant drivel. I responded no, I meant dribble and asked you to look it up. I don’t know whether you did or not, but you persisted in your view based I can only conclude on some interior conviction on your part about a blogger you hardly know. If you had looked it up you would have seen that as an intransitive verb it means primarily letting bits of saliva come out of the mouth and as a noun small flowing bits. If you had looked up the word pablum, you would have found that it refers to a cereal for infants. If you ever bore children or ever taken care of an infant you know a constant feature of their life is dribbling out of the mouth . . . oh, that and crying like a baby. So my words were of a piece to describe the VF piece — infantile.