Palin on the leakers: “Those guys are jerks”

posted at 8:50 pm on November 7, 2008 by Allahpundit

First day back at work for the ‘Cuda, and it wasn’t uneventful. I’m giving you two versions, the nitty gritty 90-second hit from CNN and the extended director’s cut from MSNBC. No names are named, but the hint she drops about the NAFTA smear probably having come from one of her debate preppers is as heavy as a barbell. Who was in charge of prepping her? Among others, according to Fox News: Randy Scheunemann, her chief defender, as well as … Steve Schmidt and Mark Wallace, husband of Nicolle. Hmmmm.

The MSNBC clip heats up starting at around 1:45; apparently, she and McCain have been chatting about this. Exit quotation: “I never asked for anything more than maybe a Diet Dr. Pepper every once in awhile.”

Update: Ambinder on the Romney rumors:

As one of the first reporters to sense these ill-winds, I don’t see an organized conspiracy. The first people with whom I spoke had no connection to Romney’s campaign whatsoever — they were longtime McCain advisers and aides… so…they didn’t much like Mitt Romney. When Palin was first selected, of the five Romney aides/advisers I remember contacting, three had positive impressions and two had mixed impressions.

Now, as the campaign progressed, there were people who can be fairly described as being Romney advisers who began to criticize Palin and pass along what their Republican friends were telling them. But so did consultants, strategists and activists representing every potential 2012 candidate. And other Romney advisers continued to praise her.

Who ordered the hit on Palin? Everyone, apparently.

Update: The MSNBC clip’s long but worth watching, especially the part about double standards for women candidates.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

Let me find this site. Might not be tonight, but it explains in detail. My eyes roll when I try to understand it. Tomorrow will call my friend and get the site that it was on. The Fair Tax site don’t explain it to good.

sheebe on November 8, 2008 at 2:29 AM

Still waiting for it!

ny59giants on November 8, 2008 at 1:34 PM

If Sarah’s reputation with the base was now in the tank and she was going home in disgrace I would recommend that Sarah wait till 2016 or never run for national office again. But on the contrary Sarah has the approval of 91% of Republicans (Rasmussen) and is the candidate the most would would vote for President in 2012 by a wide margin (64% vs 12% for Huckabee and 11% for Romney). In politics as well as life in general you strike while the iron is hot, because you may not get the chance again, and timing is everything. I thus would recommend that Sarah run for Ted Stevens’ seat (if it comes open) in the special election or Lisa Murkowski’s seat in 2010. The main reason for that would be to get her to Washington where she could make contacts with various conservative groups, enhance her reputation in foreign affairs, and appear more on MSM to disabuse the notion that she is a lightweight and a moron. Even more importantly for 2012 she would be able to make the acquaintance of Iowans and the people of NH and SC and set up a fundraising machine to raise huge sums of money for her. I know this is a minority position, but it is what it is: the people want you Sarah!

technopeasant on November 8, 2008 at 1:45 PM

You don’t answer rumors about your intelligence by correcting the “so-called” mistake that you “made”

THAT is what gives the rumors cred.

joey24007 on November 8, 2008 at 12:59 PM

The rumors get cred based on videos of her fumbling the answers to questions on Supreme Court cases and the fact that there aren’t enough other vidoes out there of her speaking with a depth of knowledge about national or international issues (other than energy).

My point is every time someone asks about Africa or Supreme Court cases use it as an opportunity to talk about the issues not Couric or a campaign leaker. She has an spotlight to discuss big issues that Jindal or Pawlenty don’t have, and an opportnity to build a collection of online videos that can be used virally to demonstrate that she’s sharp and informed.

Maybe the results wouldn’t be great, but her answer in the CNN video, referring to a country and continent of Africa, doesn’t help her.

dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Dr Evil on November 8, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Re: Dear John letter on Sarah Palin site

This letter was posted on the Real Sarah Palin site. My opinion: Pure phonus Balonus.

Have no idea what the writer intended but she proposes

* McCain appoligize for annonomous slurs
* Governour Palin can’t stand up for herself
* McCain allow Codependent Media the opportunity to prolong the slurs
* Uses way too many cliches
* Accuses McCain staff of sources
* Assumes media will report such straight

Smells of Troll QED BTW Sarah has reportedly told John to stay out of this: “I’ll handle it.” She must really have some folks scared.

Caststeel on November 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Sarah Palin Site

Caststeel on November 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Off subject here but has anyone heard anything about Obamas grandmothers funeral why has he not rushed out to Hawaii to take care of things, after all she was the one that raised him.. WHAT A MAN such morals and character is this what we have for our moral compass! give us a fu&#ing break.

driver on November 8, 2008 at 2:32 PM

I noticed BBC had this story up, but their headline said “Palin on Critics: They’re jerks.” Gee, I wonder what they’re trying to do.

Ronnie on November 8, 2008 at 3:46 PM

She is right.

They should man or woman up and give their names.

Cowards.

getalife on November 8, 2008 at 4:05 PM

I just watched the two videos. Sarah Palin talks like us real folks and is extremely gracious and joyful despite the relentless onslaught of the press and the envious. Perhaps the majority of the American public want jerks and liars and mean-spirited backstabbers. I don’t.

rickreyn on November 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM

This came stright out of Huckabee & Mitt people with the blessing of the McCain camp.This stinks to high heaven and i hope they are exposed for the rats they are.

thmcbb on November 8, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Sarah: Do not change your focus. Do not change your approach. Do not change your priorities. Do not change one hair on your head. You are perfect as is. God bless you on whatever it is you chose to do henceforth. Oh, and thank you!

argos on November 8, 2008 at 4:40 PM

The 57,000,000 that said no to Obama is the baseline.
That number will only increase.
And as for Sarah,,, her influence on this nation has only just begun. She will continue to have a national voice and I believe by the time she is ready to defeat Obama in four years, she will be drawing crowds in the hundreds of thousands.

JellyToast on November 8, 2008 at 4:41 PM

You know the phrase “a stopped clock is right twice a day.” Well, McCain was right about the Palin Pick, but with the rest of the hiring decisions he made, I’m almost glad that he was not elected.

From NewsWeak
See the video on the right side.

Secrets: Palin ‘One Step’ From Stealing

CantThinkofOne on November 8, 2008 at 4:47 PM

She is right.

They should man or woman up and give their names.

Not quite. Palin is using an old trick. Instead of flatly denying specific allegations, Palin is attacking those who leaked. Her goal is to change the topic from her lack of knowledge to the character of those who are releasing information from inside the McCain campaign.

Palin is fully aware that the people leaking these details cannot go public for fear of becoming targets of her political supporters, who would try to prevent those former staffers from landing future jobs. It’s a pure intimidation play- not designed to encourage anyone to come forward, but to warn anyone who might come forward to expect the full wrath of her political connections.

The fact that people generally see her confusion over Africa as believable is a direct reflection of her past failure to provide real answers to simple questions.

Let’s focus on the message- not attack the messengers.

bayam on November 8, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Not quite. Palin is using an old trick. Instead of flatly denying specific allegations, Palin is attacking those who leaked. Her goal is to change the topic from her lack of knowledge to the character of those who are releasing information from inside the McCain campaign.

Palin is fully aware that the people leaking these details cannot go public for fear of becoming targets of her political supporters, who would try to prevent those former staffers from landing future jobs. It’s a pure intimidation play- not designed to encourage anyone to come forward, but to warn anyone who might come forward to expect the full wrath of her political connections.

The fact that people generally see her confusion over Africa as believable is a direct reflection of her past failure to provide real answers to simple questions.

Let’s focus on the message- not attack the messengers.

bayam on November 8, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Hogwash!

She’s pissed and rightfully so. Furthermore, if the wormy bastards didn’t have the guts to stand behind their words then they should have kept their mouths shut. They are in fact a gaggle of cowards.

rplat on November 8, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Off subject here but has anyone heard anything about Obamas grandmothers funeral why has he not rushed out to Hawaii to take care of things, after all she was the one that raised him.. WHAT A MAN such morals and character is this what we have for our moral compass! give us a fu&#ing break.

driver on November 8, 2008 at 2:32 PM

BINGO!

How come nothing has been said about this? I thought about this for a couple of days, esp. on Election Night. Had press conference, nobody asked. No plane of grandma for burial here in the US or He Who Has An Empty Soul & Fa. trip to Hawaii. Hmmm, good for an email to Sean & El Rushbo.

ProudPalinFan on November 8, 2008 at 6:05 PM

ProudPalinFan on November 8, 2008 at 6:05 PM

thanks for taken note this has me FUBARed wish we have some input from ManlyRash

driver on November 8, 2008 at 6:14 PM

agree that the Republican Party needs an overhaul, but is Palin the one to do it? I just fear she will push it to an even smaller tent, because her rhetoric has a tendency to be very polarizing.
I have a feeling that those weren’t Palin’s intentions. The campaign wanted for her to be culture warrior while McCain tried to appeal to some indies and moderate dems. If she ever runs, She would probably be a much different person then she was on the trail.

Here’s a clear up on that oil tax ordeal.

No, Palin didn’t institute a “windfall profits” tax on the oil companies. She modified the existing severance tax, which works more or less like a sales tax on resources taken out of the ground. (A windfall profit tax, of course, is based on profits.) Just by the way, how is it she’s both “in the pocket of the oil companies” and supposedly instituting a windfall profits tax anyway?
Palinpuma on November 8, 2008 at 2:24 AM

Sarah is not negative at all. She merely had to be attacking as McCain’s bulldog vp. Study her past in campaigning for the governorship of AK, and talk to Alaskans. They will tell you that she is not a negative campaigner there. She was merely being the good attack dog veep that McCain needed and wanted. She was professional in her work for the campaign.

Sapwolf on November 8, 2008 at 6:23 PM

There’s a big difference between a leak and a lie.

RightTurnOnly on November 8, 2008 at 7:06 PM

“Who ordered the hit on Palin? Everyone, apparently.”

Ouch. Although she did accuse the President-Elect of “palling around with terrorists” so I only kinda feel sorry for her. I’m sure she’s a good governor, but I think she’s better off spending time shooting moose and wolves out of helicopters and taking care of the sled dogs than negotiating with foreign leaders. I’ll even let her and the First Dude keep the clothes. You betcha!

jim_collins on November 8, 2008 at 7:09 PM

Lets all draft Newt to run in 2012. He is not only the smartest, most knowledgeable and truest Conservative we have, but has a long record of accomplishments under his belt. Most importantly he actually writes his own books instead of having a domestic terrorist do the ghostwriting. I would love to see Newt choke-slam Obama in the debates. He can shred anyone. He is a real polymath. Seriously guys lets do it… NEWT’2012

jacobnyc on November 8, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Off subject here but has anyone heard anything about Obamas grandmothers funeral why has he not rushed out to Hawaii to take care of things, after all she was the one that raised him.. WHAT A MAN such morals and character is this what we have for our moral compass! give us a fu&#ing break.

If you recall he left the campaign trail to visit her when her health took a turn for the worse, and he is going out for the funeral and put up with the Westboro Baptist Church “God Hates Fags” asshats, but at the time (I’m just guessing) he considered becoming the 44th President of the United States to be a higher priority. Just guessing.

jim_collins on November 8, 2008 at 7:15 PM

If I were Palin, I’d stay in Alaska and have a happy life. The world media is out to destroy her, and they will.

PattyJ on November 8, 2008 at 7:17 PM

Off subject here but has anyone heard anything about Obamas grandmothers funeral why has he not rushed out to Hawaii to take care of things, after all she was the one that raised him.. WHAT A MAN such morals and character is this what we have for our moral compass! give us a fu&#ing break.

If you recall he left the campaign trail to visit her when her health took a turn for the worse, and he is going out for the funeral and put up with the Westboro Baptist Church “God Hates F*gs” a**hats, but at the time (I’m just guessing) he considered becoming the 44th President of the United States to be a higher priority. Just guessing.

jim_collins on November 8, 2008 at 7:18 PM

We love Sarah!!

RobCon on November 8, 2008 at 7:35 PM

The only reason anybody has to criticize Sarah is that she cost McCain the Presidency. If you notice, very few are criticizing her on that basis but they are criticizing her to diminish her as a woman and human being so she will not be candidate for the Presidency in 2012. These people all have ulterior motives. But everything leads back to Obama. The MSM are his mouthpiece; McCain’s staffers and other Republican cowards are just tools to be used by Obama as prepares himself for the 2012 campaign.

technopeasant on November 8, 2008 at 8:12 PM

People complained about President Bush not answering his critics.

People are now complaining that Gov. Palin is answering her critics.

She’s got more hutzpah than most of us.

You go, Girl … I mean Governor Girl.

Palin/Jindal ’12

davidk on November 8, 2008 at 8:42 PM

Palin is fully aware that the people leaking these details cannot go public for fear of becoming targets of her political supporters, who would try to prevent those former staffers from landing future jobs. It’s a pure intimidation play- not designed to encourage anyone to come forward, but to warn anyone who might come forward to expect the full wrath of her political connections.

The fact that people generally see her confusion over Africa as believable is a direct reflection of her past failure to provide real answers to simple questions.

Let’s focus on the message- not attack the messengers.

bayam on November 8, 2008 at 5:44 PM

And why would I want some loser from a McCain/Romney/Huckabee/Thompson/Smuckatelli campaign, who cannot recognize the only exciting contribution to the Republican side of this campaign came from this honest, forthright, decent, and honorable woman. I love John McCain and his service, but he follows his own drum and not the country’s conservatives. He has bashed conservatives far too often to expect our vote. Sarah Palin is the ONLY reason conservative Americans voted for Sen McCain and those who can’t handle that Truth have no business being in charge of any other campaign of having a career at all in DC. They are cowards and lack the Integrity necessary to be trusted to run the country, whether for Rs or Ds.

I hate them and consider them less than snakes and pond scum. Loyalty is underrated everywhere in government. Loyalty to your boss and to your country are the number one requirements to work in govt.

All these Cowards can go piss up a rope.

Subsunk

Subsunk on November 8, 2008 at 8:44 PM

The only reason anybody has to criticize Sarah is that she cost McCain the Presidency.

technopeasant on November 8, 2008 at 8:12 PM

Therefor, there is no reason to critcize her.

davidk on November 8, 2008 at 8:44 PM

Let’s focus on the message- not attack the messengers.

No.
Let us actually attack the messengers.
Civility has gotten us no where.
Compassionate conservatism was a failure.
If we play nice, we will lose every time.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 9:30 PM

The only reason anybody has to criticize Sarah is that she cost McCain the Presidency.

technopeasant on November 8, 2008 at 8:12 PM

Are you serious or seriously mentally challenged,nay, retarded?
Sarah Palin was the ONLY reason Obama did not win in a landslide.
Step away from whatever ideals you believe in. They went bad. Believe it.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 9:32 PM

I consider 360+ electoral votes a landslide. It wasn’t close at all.

haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:05 PM

I consider 360+ electoral votes a landslide. It wasn’t close at all.

haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:05 PM

You consideration is off from most official accounts.
Not a landslide.
Sorry.
Try again.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 10:13 PM

From “NewsWeak“See the video on the right side.
Secrets: Palin ‘One Step’ From Stealing

This whole thing with the clothes and implying that she was trying to steal stuff bothers me the most out of all of this. The other stuff is obviously ridiculous and eventually will be seen as such by the majority of fair-minded people. I think the clothes story is the kind of thing that sticks in people’s minds over the long term, and that if she doesn’t get completely cleared of it that it could hang over her for a long time. Even if she does, lots people will only remember the original story and the charges that she ran up these bills and then tried to steal this stuff. The corrections to these kinds of stories never get as much attention as the original.

There’s nobody really out there defending her on this story either. Rick Davis and Nicolle Wallace only offered sort of mealy-mouthed explanations that she had done nothing wrong. They certainly left lots of room for people to think and say that Palin was ordering staffers to go out and spend tons of money on clothes and spray tans, etc. If it’s true that she did that then she should take some flak for it (though we all make mistakes, get caught up in the moment, and have errors in judgment).

If, as Palin says, it wasn’t her at all, then it’s absolutely appalling that she’s got this mark on her name. I really do think that it’ll be a long time before some people forget about this story. She can, through a focused and serious media campaign, overcome all these other stories over time. When she runs for president or for re-election as governor her opponents and enemies will point to the clothes and use them against her, whether she deserves it or not.

meltenn on November 8, 2008 at 10:13 PM

YouYour consideration..
But you knew what I meant. Didn’t you?

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 10:13 PM

Not quite. Palin is using an old trick. Instead of flatly denying specific allegations, Palin is attacking those who leaked. Her goal is to change the topic from her lack of knowledge to the character of those who are releasing information from inside the McCain campaign.

Palin is fully aware that the people leaking these details cannot go public for fear of becoming targets of her political supporters, who would try to prevent those former staffers from landing future jobs. It’s a pure intimidation play- not designed to encourage anyone to come forward, but to warn anyone who might come forward to expect the full wrath of her political connections.

The fact that people generally see her confusion over Africa as believable is a direct reflection of her past failure to provide real answers to simple questions.

Let’s focus on the message- not attack the messengers.

bayam on November 8, 2008 at 5:44 PM

I think neither the “messenger” nor Palin are without criticism in all this. That a messenger can get away with the Africa smear indicates the low expectations people have for Palin, and I think that should be seen as devastating in its own right. Obviously these anonymous leakers are below contempt, but I have little sympathy for Sarah Palin either. This is the big leagues, if she can’t handle the media and a few rogue aids, how is she going to win the general election in 2012 against an Obama presidency?

Want to see a real landslide? Palin 2012 is your admission ticket.

haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:16 PM

Not quite. Palin is using an old trick. Instead of flatly denying specific allegations, Palin is attacking those who leaked. Her goal is to change the topic from her lack of knowledge to the character of those who are releasing information from inside the McCain campaign.

Palin is fully aware that the people leaking these details cannot go public for fear of becoming targets of her political supporters, who would try to prevent those former staffers from landing future jobs. It’s a pure intimidation play- not designed to encourage anyone to come forward, but to warn anyone who might come forward to expect the full wrath of her political connections.

The fact that people generally see her confusion over Africa as believable is a direct reflection of her past failure to provide real answers to simple questions.

Let’s focus on the message- not attack the messengers.

bayam on November 8, 2008 at 5:44 PM

I think neither the “messenger” nor Palin are without criticism in all this. That a messenger can get away with the Africa smear indicates the low expectations people have for Palin, and I think that should be seen as devastating in its own right. Obviously these anonymous leakers are below contempt, but I have little sympathy for Sarah Palin either. This is the big leagues, if she can’t handle the media and a few rogue aids, how is she going to win the general election in 2012 against an Obama presidency?

Want to see a real landslide loss? Palin 2012 is your admission ticket.

haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:17 PM

haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:16 PM
haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:17 PM

So nice you posted twice?
I have an idea for you sir. Since there is absolutely 0% chance that you will sway anyone on Hot Air to your POSSOBBHO side, why don’t you try something a little more constructive. I recommend knitting lessons.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 10:20 PM

what the GOP really needs is a Presidential candidate that is not only willing to campaign in 57 out of the 60 states but in all 60 states

His running mate must also be prepared to discuss FDR’s ability to use television to ease the fears of Americans while predicting an American crisis should his campaign win

Chuck, stand up chuck!

thats the ticket!

joey24007 on November 8, 2008 at 10:24 PM

It really is kind of ironic that one debate, a couple of mediocre interviews, and one well delivered speech at the convention make her the heir apparent to the nomination in 2012. Some of the same people criticized the coronation of Obama as the year played out.
The comparisons to Reagan are what cause me throw up a little. Reagan busted his hump and paid his dues – 1964 Keynote at convention, couple of terms as governor of Ca, unsuccessful run in primaries in 1976, and finally winning in 1980.
If she can get in there and mix it up with the heavyweights in the primaries and EARN the nomination I’ll be suitably impressed. Until that happens I’d recommend some of the Palin Heads be more objective.

Bradky on November 8, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Not a landslide.
Sorry.
Try again.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 10:13 PM

Any of the mainstream GOP primary candidates (not including Ron Paul and Tancredo) could have done as well as McCain did and secure 150+ EV’s. Palin didn’t save McCain from a landslide. Republicans never lose by a true landslide (470+), because of the way the electoral votes are distributed. But this election was effectively over after 9PM Eastern, and that’s a landslide in my book.

Carter only got 297 EV’s (Ford got 240) in 1976 after all the drama of Watergate and Nixon’s resignation. Obama has just had the most decisive Democratic victory for a non-incumbent in a century. And you don’t consider that a landslide?

haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:31 PM

And you don’t consider that a landslide?

haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:31 PM

No sir. Neither does anyone else. I have not heard ‘landslide’ used to describe this election. Look at Wiki. Look at Google. Find anything, any source that called this election a ‘landslide’ and post the link here. I would love to see it.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Haner: And it should have been a landslide. It doesn’t really matter. Your side won this time. Congratulations and enjoy the win.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Haner: And it should have been a landslide. It doesn’t really matter. Your side won this time. Congratulations and enjoy the win.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 10:40 PM

What the hell is wrong with you Palin worshippers? Anyone who doesn’t wish her to be the nominee for 2012 must be an Obama supporter? Last I checked, she’s not elected as the nominee of our party yet. You guys are as tyrannical as the Obamabots.

haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:44 PM

What the hell is wrong with you Palin worshippers? Anyone who doesn’t wish her to be the nominee for 2012 must be an Obama supporter? Last I checked, she’s not elected as the nominee of our party yet. You guys are as tyrannical as the Obamabots.

haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Actually I was making that assumption by reading your comments here today and yesterday. I have never seen you post here before and if you are not an Obama fan, I apologize for making that judgment.
You appear to be anit-conservative at any rate. Even if you consider yourself a republican, you would be hard-pressed to call yourself conservative with your comments here so far.
Please, describe your ideals so we can all know how to react to your anti-Palin and anti-GOP comments.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 10:49 PM

I consider 360+ electoral votes a landslide. It wasn’t close at all.

haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:05 PM

Consider all you want but you’re an idiot for making such a statement. Just because it wasn’t a disputed election relying on the returns on one state doesn’t make it a “landslide.” That’s nothing but propaganda from idiots like you!!!

Landslides include:

1984- Reagan’s 525 electoral votes to Mondale’s 13
1972- Nixon’s 520 to McGovern’s 17
1936- FDR’s 523 to Landon’s 8

364 electoral votes to 174 is NOT a landslide and doesn’t give Obama any sort of mandate. Do you think that Clinton was elected in landslides?

1992- Clinton’s 320 electoral votes to 168 for GHWB
1996- Clinton’s 379 electoral votes to 159 for Dole

But before you answer that, consider that GHWB garnered 426 electoral votes to Dukakis’ 111

Before making such stupid statements perhaps you should understand a little bit more about history. I can only presume you are basing your moronic statement on the 2000 and 2004 election. History shows that the Obama/McCain election was pretty average. Not close but not a landslide either:

2008- 364/174
2004- 286/251
2000- 271/266
1996- 379/159
1992- 370/158
1988- 426/111
1984- 525/13
1980- 489/49
1976- 297/240
1972- 520/17
1968- 301/191
1964- 486/52
1960- 303/219
1956- 457/73
1952- 442/89
1948- 303/189 (Truman didn’t win in a landslide)
1944- 432/99
1940- 449/82
1936- 523/8
1932- 472/59
1928- 444/87

I could go further back in history but I’ve made my point. calling a 364/174 win by a terrorist-loving socialist is just stupid. You take an ordinary outcome and declare a landslide without any actual facts to back up your statements. Typical liberal spin that I guess we should expect during the next four years as every Obama event is declared historic and extraordinary. Looking forward to full reports of the first bowel movements by a non-white President in the White House or the first time a multi-racial President bangs a black woman in the private residence.

highhopes on November 8, 2008 at 10:50 PM

highhopes on November 8, 2008 at 10:50 PM

Thank you for putting forth the effort that our friend Haney refused to do. I guess anyone can make arguments on an Internet site without backing it up with evidence. You are commended for proving that this election was NOT a landslide.
FYI: Haney is not an Obama supporter. He/she just loathes Palin and the GOP.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 10:53 PM

Last I checked, she’s not elected as the nominee of our party yet. You guys are as tyrannical as the Obamabots.

haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Our party? From a moron who thinks that Obama won in a landslide??????? You aren’t part of the GOP that I know.

Palin will, in all likelihood not be on the ticket in 2012 but that is four years in the future (and Bobby Jindal’s headed to Iowa next month). Nevertheless, Palin deserves a little defending this week as McCain’s people trash her to the media outlets since they abhorred the idea of putting a social conservative/evangelical on the ticket in the first place.

highhopes on November 8, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Highhopes: also, despite the MSM and Obama calling himself a ‘black’ man, he is not. Does he have black parents? No. He is a mulatto.
I guess it would be as convenient as me calling myself a Cherokee Indian because I have equal parts Cherokee and German blood. Convenient.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 10:57 PM

In regards to Palin running for POTUS in ’12, I think she may be snatched up as Sec. of Energy, if she indeed, does not get the nomination, with someone like Romney or Jindal getting it instead.

This YouTube video explains why she may be the Sec of Energy or the Interior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6h2W9ZEwuM

She’s extremely knowledgeable in this area, and she will only continue to become more so over the next 4 years.

hockey2k5 on November 8, 2008 at 11:01 PM

FYI: Haney is not an Obama supporter. He/she just loathes Palin and the GOP.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 10:53 PM

Thanks for noting my efforts but doesn’t loathing Palin and the GOP make one an Obama supporter by default in our two-party system?

highhopes on November 8, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Thanks for noting my efforts but doesn’t loathing Palin and the GOP make one an Obama supporter by default in our two-party system?

highhopes on November 8, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Well, one would think. However, he/she stated that I was wrong in pegging him/her as an Obama supporter so that is all I have.
You are welcome.

carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 11:03 PM

Highhopes: also, despite the MSM and Obama calling himself a ‘black’ man, he is not. Does he have black parents? No. He is a mulatto.
carbon_footprint on November 8, 2008 at 10:53 PM

This is one of those things that bugs me beyond belief. Obama is “multi-racial” in PC terms. Had he been running as a Republican this fact would have been part of the mantra from the left. He would have been reviled for not really being black. But because Obama, a terrorist-loving racist socialist, ran as a Democrat it’s as if MLK or Christ was elected President. That’s the narrative we are going have to deal with over the next four to eight years.

highhopes on November 8, 2008 at 11:05 PM

Note to self:

If I ever decide to run for office, I will play nonstop “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?”

ProudPalinFan on November 8, 2008 at 11:17 PM

I could go further back in history but I’ve made my point. calling a 364/174 win by a terrorist-loving socialist is just stupid. You take an ordinary outcome and declare a landslide without any actual facts to back up your statements.

highhopes on November 8, 2008 at 10:50 PM

Your reading comprehension obviously isn’t very good, but why am I not surprised given the amount of knee-jerk reactions I see from you Palin worshippers. I said specifically of a non-incumbent victory.

haner on November 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM

Thanks for noting my efforts but doesn’t loathing Palin and the GOP make one an Obama supporter by default in our two-party system?

highhopes on November 8, 2008 at 11:01 PM

haner on November 8, 2008 at 11:55 PM

Newest Palin Smear: Shes really a hologram

Speedwagon82 on November 8, 2008 at 11:57 PM

Thanks for noting my efforts but doesn’t loathing Palin and the GOP make one an Obama supporter by default in our two-party system?

highhopes on November 8, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Uh no… Palin is not yet the 2012 presidential nominee. She’s the governor of Alaska. There were plenty of people who loathed McCain or Huckabee during the GOP primary, are they by your retarded definition also Obama supporters?

I’m not even saying Palin was necessarily a mistake for McCain, I just argued that she didn’t help him much either and I don’t believe she can win in 2012.

haner on November 9, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Our party? From a moron who thinks that Obama won in a landslide??????? You aren’t part of the GOP that I know.

haner on November 9, 2008 at 12:07 AM

Our party? From a moron who thinks that Obama won in a landslide??????? You aren’t part of the GOP that I know.

highhopes on November 8, 2008

I said Obama’s win was effectively a landslide, in the specific sense that it was the most decisive Democratic non-incumbent victory in long time. And what do you do? You give me a list of all the past elections with your definition of landslides that were either an incumbent or Republican victory. It’s not my fault you can’t fucking read a sentence.

Personality worship isn’t the GOP I know.

haner on November 9, 2008 at 12:14 AM

I’m done here. If Palin wins the nomination for 2012, I will hold my nose and vote for her. But I will still be convinced that she would lose decisively. But until she actually gets elected as the GOP nominee, my criticising and doubting Palin does not make me a Democrat or an Obama-supporter. People like high_hopes who believe that there is only a binary choice before Palin is even our nominee can go take a hike.

haner on November 9, 2008 at 12:19 AM

I consider 360+ electoral votes a landslide. It wasn’t close at all.

haner on November 8, 2008 at 10:05 PM

Your reading comprehension obviously isn’t very good, but why am I not surprised given the amount of knee-jerk reactions I see from you Palin worshippers. I said specifically of a non-incumbent victory.

haner on November 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM

No you didn’t you moron.

highhopes on November 9, 2008 at 12:41 AM

I said Obama’s win was effectively a landslide, in the specific sense that it was the most decisive Democratic non-incumbent victory in long time. And what do you do? You give me a list of all the past elections with your definition of landslides that were either an incumbent or Republican victory. It’s not my fault you can’t fucking read a sentence.

It’s not my fault you don’t have a fucking clue.

highhopes on November 9, 2008 at 12:43 AM

this really goes out on a limb.

while i’m confident the first batch or two of rumors were mccain aides trying to keep from tarnishing their reps w/a losing campaign this one kinda does sound like some dem somewhere is trying to just pile on and cause more damage. im sure they realize the danger sarah poses to them.

chasdal on November 9, 2008 at 1:21 AM

No you didn’t you moron.
It’s not my fault you don’t have a fucking clue.

highhopes on November 9, 2008 at 12:41 AM

I immediately clarified what I meant when I said landslide, you piece of shit. Your response to list the incumbent and Republican victories was after I had posted my clarification, after you had read it. Losers like you with your head in the sand arguing over semantics are the reason why the Republican Party is in disarray now. Yes, we fucking lost and we lost badly, and what is your solution? 1. Denial, 2. Palin 2012 (who was just on the ticket). And anyone who is suspicious of that plan is immediately branded an Obama supporter.

People like you make me realize there are dumbasses and blind cult followers in both parties.

haner on November 9, 2008 at 1:35 AM

this really goes out on a limb.

chasdal on November 9, 2008 at 1:21 AM

I agree, that one is laughable, isn’t McCain against drilling in ANWR himself?

haner on November 9, 2008 at 1:41 AM

What’s next~

Palin in carrying John McCain’s lovechild?

I’d believe Barry liked puppies first.

profitsbeard on November 9, 2008 at 1:48 AM

Wow what a nice little pissing war we have here

driver on November 9, 2008 at 1:56 AM

As far as I’m concerned, Palin is the best political move McCain ever made. Now that he’s totally thrown her under the bus, he’s proven he will go back to sucking-face with the left.

He should switch parties and become Democrat, FINALLY! And Lieberman should switch parties and become Republican. We’ll welcome him with open arms.

And Palin will lead the way to our victory in 2012 with Jindal at her side.

ErinF on November 9, 2008 at 3:09 AM

these anti-Palin folks need to buy a clue … of course we are going to defend her and talk her up … for many of us she was the reason we volunteered, donated money and voted for McCain

and right now she is being absolutely DESTROYED by the media and our own freaking party

you are darn right that she tops my list to get the GOP nod in 2012, she is approved by 91% of Republicans, she was just the VP choice … meaning that she wasn’t herself half of the time and had to play along with the McCain folks, who ruined her almost from day one.

I am open to the best GOP candidate for the next presidential election … when somebody other than Palin emerges then I will take them into consideration

what will not happen is me sitting back and watching this lady get thrown under the bus by these freaking rodents in the McCain camp

the people making the smears have remained “unknown” while the people who are defending her have put their name out there … the rumors are obviously lies, now the only thing left is to identify these people so that they never walk for a GOP candidate again

joey24007 on November 9, 2008 at 4:43 AM

I think a lot of the anti-Palin people are Democratic operatives (astroturfers) working the various conservative sites. For obvious reason they have no wish to see Sarah Palin run in 2012.

In that desire they are joined by GOP/RINO’s who don’t want to lose their place at the country club either.

The Rockefeller Republicans would rather see a Republican defeat than a conservative victory. John McCain is a case in point. He seems pretty comfortable with losing with honour.

There is one other strange thing about the ‘leakers’. If they are just mercenaries looking out for themselves then why are there no John McCain rumours floating about? He was at the top of the ticket and if they are just looking for a scapegoat, he makes a lot more sense than Sarah Palin for that purpose.

sharrukin on November 9, 2008 at 5:26 AM

I said Obama’s win was effectively a landslide, in the specific sense that it was the most decisive Democratic non-incumbent victory in long time. And what do you do? You give me a list of all the past elections with your definition of landslides that were either an incumbent or Republican victory. It’s not my fault you can’t fucking read a sentence.

Personality worship isn’t the GOP I know.

haner on November 9, 2008 at 12:14 AM

His victory is just about the same as Clinton’s, in terms of electoral college and percentage win over the Republicans. If you compare the voting shift since 1992, you’ll see the country was much more Republican this time around.

Phoenician on November 9, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Would we have two minority Presidents back to back you think? I am just throwing out the question.

johnnyU on November 9, 2008 at 8:34 AM

Man, I think she’s great..

she is the future of the GOP.

for whoever thinks she talks funny, listen to the blue bloods in the Hamptons.. now that’s a funny accent..

DaveC on November 9, 2008 at 8:35 AM

And Palin will lead the way to our victory in 2012 with Jindal at her side.

ErinF on November 9, 2008 at 3:09 AM

LOL – now that is funny. Have you let Bobby know he needs to wait on the sidelines for Sara’s coronation?

Bradky on November 9, 2008 at 8:40 AM

These conservatives preen as especially respectful of regular — or as Palin says, “real” — Americans, whose tribune Palin purports to be. But note the argument that the manipulation of Americans by “the mainstream media” explains the fact that the more Palin campaigned, the less Americans thought of her qualifications. This argument portrays Americans as a bovine herd — or as inert clay in the hands of wily media, which only Palin’s conservative celebrators can decipher and resist.

These conservatives, smitten by a vice presidential choice based on chromosomes, seem eager to compete on the Democrats’ terrain of identity politics, entering the “diversity” sweepstakes they have hitherto rightly deplored. We have seen this movie before. Immediately after the 1972 election, some conservatives laid down the law — the 1976 Republican nominee must be Vice President Spiro Agnew.

This came from George Will’s latest article at
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/irony_abounds.html

Words of wisdom the Palinmaniacs would be wise to consider.

Bradky on November 9, 2008 at 8:45 AM

There is one other strange thing about the ‘leakers’. If they are just mercenaries looking out for themselves then why are there no John McCain rumours floating about? He was at the top of the ticket and if they are just looking for a scapegoat, he makes a lot more sense than Sarah Palin for that purpose.

sharrukin on November 9, 2008 at 5:26 AM

Not that strange ,in this game she’s just expendable.

You don’t ever sell out your customer , Mccain.
But you can scapegoat the sidekick.

Defending Sarah is about defending democracy.

It’s the political elite ( msm and the self selected party machines ) trying to get rid of one from the people.

Maybe they realized that “cleaning up Washington” just wasn’t empty words coming out of her mouth.

the_nile on November 9, 2008 at 8:49 AM

Defending Sarah is about defending democracy.

No it is not. It is about defending your choice for the next election – nothing more nothing less.

It’s the political elite ( msm and the self selected party machines ) trying to get rid of one from the people.

Perhaps you missed the quote from George Will above:

But note the argument that the manipulation of Americans by “the mainstream media” explains the fact that the more Palin campaigned, the less Americans thought of her qualifications. This argument portrays Americans as a bovine herd — or as inert clay in the hands of wily media, which only Palin’s conservative celebrators can decipher and resist.

Objectivity is the cornerstone of critical thinking.

Bradky on November 9, 2008 at 8:55 AM

These conservatives, smitten by a vice presidential choice based on chromosomes, seem eager to compete on the Democrats’ terrain of identity politics, entering the “diversity” sweepstakes they have hitherto rightly deplored. We have seen this movie before. Immediately after the 1972 election, some conservatives laid down the law — the 1976 Republican nominee must be Vice President Spiro Agnew.This came from George Will’s latest article at
Bradky on November 9, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Bradky: You don’t need the Philosophical One George Will stretching for his nonsequiturs to justify your beliefs.
Speak for yourself so you’ll make sense.

gracie on November 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM

Would we have two minority Presidents back to back you think? I am just throwing out the question.

johnnyU on November 9, 2008 at 8:34 AM

Women are the majority. ;)

Objectivity is the cornerstone of critical thinking.

Bradky on November 9, 2008 at 8:55 AM

Its just too bad that George Will ddidn’t have the objectivity to see a candidate whose candidacy was based solely on skin pigmentation.

ddrintn on November 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM

gracie on November 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM

Okay you want my words; Palin was a dumb choice driven in part because McCain rightly worried the base wouldn’t support him. Palin is far out of her league and two months on the campaign trail doesn’t give her the right to be the 2012 nominee.

Finally, those who can’t be objective are just fanboys and girls whose opinion is suspect. Typing Cuda! or Sara 2012! does not make me believe the writer can be objective irt Palin.

Bradky on November 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Finally, those who can’t be objective are just fanboys and girls whose opinion is suspect. Typing Cuda! or Sara 2012! does not make me believe the writer can be objective irt Palin.

Bradky on November 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM

In other words, they don’t see reality the way you see reality; ergo, they’re not being objective. Hell, I wish a little more than 48% of the electorate had been more “objective”.

ddrintn on November 9, 2008 at 9:27 AM

Okay you want my words; Palin was a dumb choice driven in part because McCain rightly worried the base wouldn’t support him. Palin is far out of her league and two months on the campaign trail doesn’t give her the right to be the 2012 nominee.
Finally, those who can’t be objective are just fanboys and girls whose opinion is suspect. Typing Cuda! or Sara 2012! does not make me believe the writer can be objective irt Palin.

Bradky on November 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Thank you, Bradky. Now I can see that all is not lost on you. And you are right alluding to the facts that Mrs. Palin has several challenges ahead of her to convince enough of the electorate that she is both capable and worthy of the Presidency. (By the way, Obama escaped objective critical examination.) I believe that Sarah Palin’s character and convictions count, and that she can and will do it.

gracie on November 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM

driver on November 8, 2008 at 6:14 PM

Indeed. If only diaperrash was here to say ‘McCain will win’ and post that stupid story about how he generated his screen name in every other thread, all would be well in GOP land.
Look, instead of you groupies and sockpuppets posting updates and emails from exile, why don’t you just tell him to slink back here and act like he didn’t make a complete fool of himself? Nobody actually cares that he’s gone. His constructive on topic input was minimal; the only thing worse than having him here, treating the comment section like Adultfriendfinder, is having people like you yearning for him to come back. He’s not missed. Let him come back, or shut up about it.

As to Sarah, give her a little time to practice with the ever unfriendly press, keep her away from people like John McCain, and she’ll be fine in a few years. She’s a natural at reaching out to the electorate; let her tighten up her intellectual muscles on policy, and she’ll be nigh unstoppable.

austinnelly on November 9, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Defending Sarah is about defending democracy.

No it is not. It is about defending your choice for the next election – nothing more nothing less.

It’s the political elite ( msm and the self selected party machines ) trying to get rid of one from the people.

Perhaps you missed the quote from George Will above:

But note the argument that the manipulation of Americans by “the mainstream media” explains the fact that the more Palin campaigned, the less Americans thought of her qualifications. This argument portrays Americans as a bovine herd — or as inert clay in the hands of wily media, which only Palin’s conservative celebrators can decipher and resist.

Objectivity is the cornerstone of critical thinking.

Bradky on November 9, 2008 at 8:55 AM

Dear Moonbat Bradky Trollinsky, even media does now admit they were biased , after they screwed the election.

I’m not an American , I’m not religious.

I live in Scandinavia ,when i see our mainly left wing media ( bush bashers ) and the American media in concert having a field day on every bizarre rumor about Palin , i know she’s right and the media dead wrong.
You can still read articles that says she thinks the world is 4000years old.

the_nile on November 9, 2008 at 12:59 PM

the_nile on November 9, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Dear I’m still in the_denile Knucklehead,
Your implication is that the right wing media are always right. What exactly separates you from the moonbats you despise? both sets run off talking points they read on the internet like a bad case of diarrhea.
If it hurts your brain too much to consider differing viewpoints save us all some time and just type Cuda! and let it go. I’ll get the picture believe me.

Bradky on November 9, 2008 at 5:06 PM

The one thing Palin needs to learn how to do is disrespect the press while making it look like she likes them

like Reagan

joey24007 on November 9, 2008 at 6:02 PM

There was a time when men wouldn’t allow these types of attacks on women.

Lawyers pretty much ended that.

Oh well.

BowHuntingTexas on November 9, 2008 at 10:50 PM

I think it’s a tad too convenient that all the Big Media boys are coming to the defense of Romney(Ambinder, that Newsweek chick).

promachus on November 10, 2008 at 10:03 AM

Dear I’m still in the_denile Knucklehead,
Your implication is that the right wing media are always right. What exactly separates you from the moonbats you despise? both sets run off talking points they read on the internet like a bad case of diarrhea.
If it hurts your brain too much to consider differing viewpoints save us all some time and just type Cuda! and let it go. I’ll get the picture believe me.

Bradky on November 9, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Try to read what i wrote and not the inside of your empty skull. When the media are so obviously deranged you have to defend the attacked, you saw how they attacked “Joe the plumber” when he was a threat to Obama.

Fool me once , shame on you . You will not fool me again.

the_nile on November 10, 2008 at 12:45 PM

CUDA!!!!!!!!!!
the_nile on November 10, 2008 at 12:45 PM

See, I knew you could do it.

Bradky on November 10, 2008 at 7:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8