Video: Vanity Fair author defends Palin hit piece

posted at 8:09 pm on June 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

You knew there was going to be a thread on it; the only question was whether it’d be a regular post or the quote of the day. Now, pop quiz: Which rock-ribbed Republican not long ago called Todd Purdum, the author of the VF hatchet job, a “scumbag” and said this about his reporting?

“[He’s] sleazy,” he said referring to Purdum. “He’s a really dishonest reporter. And one of our guys talked to him . . . And I haven’t read [the article]. There’s just five or six blatant lies in there. But he’s a real slimy guy”…

Answer here. If you’re looking for a takedown of the VF piece, Jim Geraghty has got you covered. My own reaction was simply that, for all its length and use of anonymous insiders, it failed to advance the ball much. The stories about Palin not getting along with McCain staffers or not being ready for the intense primetime of a national campaign are old hat by now. A more useful piece would have focused on what she’s doing to rehabilitate her image and how her weaknesses might spoil a bid in 2012. (Purdum touches on that but most of the piece is a rehash.) The chief virtue of the finished product is that it’s driven some Palin fans to such extreme exasperation that they’re now outing his sources while driving her critics to such extreme derangement that they’re doubling down on Trig trutherism.

I actually do hope she runs. The more I think about it, the more fascinating a Romney/Palin showdown in the primaries seems. She’ll have evangelicals and talk radio on her side; he’ll have moderates and, in all likelihood, superior organization. You can imagine Iowa breaking for her, New Hampshire breaking for him, and then war in South Carolina and Florida. Daily traffic for Hot Air in covering it: Two million hits or bust. Exit question: What do we think of the much-publicized photos in Runner’s World today? If there’s a woman in America who’s had five kids that looks better than she does, I’d like to meet her. But if it’s gravitas that she needs to cement herself as a serious challenger to The One, I can’t imagine that a check-me-out photo helps.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Small point: Wouldn’t leaving the question “up to the states” require overturning Roe v. Wade?

Yes, of course. But if you refer to my original post, you’ll find that my point was that even if Roe v Wade was overturned, abortion would almost undoubtedly remain legal in 49 states.

It would be a Pyhrric victory: you’d have abortion outlawed in Utah, but meantime the Independent voters see you as being totally in thrall to the “scary evangelicals”

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Whatever..

It is a fact (that we are all aware of) that palin is not the brighest bulb on the lamp.

Compared with Mr. 57 states. Jumpin joe biden who didn’t know the operative section of the constitution re the VP, Joe “Stand UP crippled Guy” Biden..

Uh, at least she uh can uh give an uhm speech without hum a teleprompter and uhm dosn’t introduce herself or read the uhm irish Uhm prime ministers uhm speech on the teletubby.

Hello..she was a beauty contestant! What else do you need to know?

Oh yeah, there is a ton of scientific evidence showing that brains and beauty are mutually exclusive.. Gee, i’m glad I’m ugly.

We had a chance for a minute but she blew it big time with that katie couric interview.

Pretty stacked deck plus I have a huge suspicion as to a possibile scenario. Picture a stage hand right before the interview making a nasty comment about one of her family members. She, like any of us would be pissed but can’t mention it. (It would look like ‘playing the victim’). Not saying it’s happened but I have dealt with the media during state campaigns and the rats come out of the freaking woodwork.

One mistake she made was underestimating the levels to which the left will stoop. I think she has that figured out now.

If it’s just a hot chick that you think will win us elections..

Well, the democraps ran an empty suit with no experience and no verifiable credentials plus a crazy guy for vp (I shouldn’t say crazy. I think jumpin joe was treated for an aneurism and I have seen cases where that removes a lot of our natural inhibitions)

there are much better choices. In 2012 palin will be pretty old and menopause will be hitting any day now.

MaximusConfessor on July 1, 2009 at 12:23 PM

That didn’t stop the hildabeast now did it?? Hell, I’d take a Sarah Palin on PMS over mr. Jugeared emptysuit any day.

bullseye on July 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Time to move on.

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Too bad you libertarians don’t have your own party, huh?

OH WAIT…

I’d choose Romney over Palin…but we’re at war!

Chris_Balsz on July 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Dang, the election is over. Y’all think you
could at least spread the Palin threads out a
little?

But since they (Palin haters) cannot help themselves with the Palin attacks, I guess y’all cannot help but
notice them.

I think she can handle the attacks and what
they mostly do now is keep attention on her. She is no longer compared with the person holding the office that she would have had if McCain had won, but with obama. And if she keeps up with the smaller government and “all of the above” energy themes, her message will show through the attack pieces.

As long as she isn’t seen as craving the
attention, I figure it can only increase her
appeal.

cozmo on July 1, 2009 at 4:28 PM

It would be a Pyhrric victory: you’d have abortion outlawed in Utah, but meantime the Independent voters see you as being totally in thrall to the “scary evangelicals”

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 2:19 PM

I can’t speak for everyone, obviously, but for me this would end the discussion. If the abortion issue were thrown back to the states, then I would be fine. You see, for me, the issue isn’t whether abortion should be legal or illegal, its whether the federal government should impose this law universally. I am pro-life, but that isn’t why I want Roe v. Wade overthrown, its because I think the SCotUS empowers itself without enough checks on its power. The Constitution is explicit about what the federal government can’t do and ANYTHING not covered is in the states’ balliwick, so the whole idea that SCotUS can take the 14th Amendment and interpret it to mean whatever the hell they want is completely *wrong*. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, so that means its a states’ rights issue. The only reason that the Constitution got ratified is because the states would retain power, they formed the national government, not the other way around.

We can argue about whether abortion should be (il)legal in our states, but as long as unaccountable and unelected officials can seize power (the SCotUS) any time they like, I say its illegitimate.

Geministorm on July 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Too bad you libertarians don’t have your own party, huh?

OH WAIT…

Yes, we do have our own party. We’d happily work with the Republicans if they hadn’t shamelessly abandoned constitutional principles.

Ignore us if you wish. But it is a fact that there would be 3 more Republicans in the Senate right now if we had held our noses and voted R, rather than stand on principle.

That’s what 3rd parties are really for in this system…to send a message that, if heard, brings the dominant parties into line.

Republicans didn’t listen to us. Democrats listened up when Nader cost them two elections in a row: they swerved waaay left to bring that vote back. Republicans were too smug, too dismissive to listen to what Libertarians were saying…and now you have Stuart Smalley, among others, to show for it.

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 5:00 PM

The death penalty isn’t mentioned in the US Constitution, its a states’ rights issue. The death penalty could be outlawed nationally by interpreting the “cruel and unusual punishment” part of the 8th Amendment.

Assisted suicide (Oregon) isn’t mentioned in the US Constitution, its a states’ rights issue. Assisted suicide could be outlawed nationally by interpreting the 14th Amendment and invoking the same right to privacy protections as abortion.

Abortion isn’t mentioned in the US Constitution…and yet its legalized nationally.

There is a problem here, don’t you think?
See where I’m going here?

Geministorm on July 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Ignore us if you wish. But it is a fact that there would be 3 more Republicans in the Senate right now if we had held our noses and voted R, rather than stand on principle.

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 5:00 PM

And you got what in exchange? Smugness along with liberal senators? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face…

ddrintn on July 1, 2009 at 5:25 PM

That’s what 3rd parties are really for in this system…to send a message that, if heard, brings the dominant parties into line.

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 5:00 PM

Sorry, but the Libertarian Party just doesn’t have the numbers to be a major factor. And anyway, if Libertarians feel more comfortable with Democratic victories than Republican ones, that’s their prerogative; and we all thank you for it.

ddrintn on July 1, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Sorry, but the Libertarian Party just doesn’t have the numbers to be a major factor. And anyway, if Libertarians feel more comfortable with Democratic victories than Republican ones, that’s their prerogative; and we all thank you for it.

Please, maybe I’m not getting my point across. Study the history of 3rd parties in this country. The have been enormously influential. The Republicans started as a 3rd party. The Progressives (ugh) ushered in a whole flotilla of social programs – unemployment insurance, social security (ugh again), civil service, etc.

Generally, 3rd parties are formed by people who feel very strongly about certain principles (limited government and low taxes, in my case) and who see that the major party with whom they once identified ignore those principles.

What then happens…and u can look at the history…is the small percentage of voters who split off into the 3rd party cost the major party elections…until the major party pays attention and returns to a stance closer to its roots.

The Democrats got it, when Nader cost them two elections. The Republicans…who feel like Libertarians are just a tiny fringe party…and we are, in a certain sense…haven’t paid attention, even though the evidence is clear: if the Libertarian vote had gone Republican instead, the Republicans would have held their Senate seats in Oregon, Missouri and Montana over the past two cycles.

It would have behooved the GOP to pay attention and ask Libertarians, “what is it that you want?”

And we would have said: fiscal responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes and a true reverence for the Constitution.

And you know what? I doubt that you would would disagree with those things.

We’re just trying to move the GOP back to its roots.

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM

Please, maybe I’m not getting my point across. Study the history of 3rd parties in this country. The have been enormously influential. The Republicans started as a 3rd party. The Progressives (ugh) ushered in a whole flotilla of social programs – unemployment insurance, social security (ugh again), civil service, etc.

I just don’t think the Libertarians wield the widespread influence the Progressives did in the late 19th-early 20th centuries.

The Democrats got it, when Nader cost them two elections. The Republicans…who feel like Libertarians are just a tiny fringe party…and we are, in a certain sense…haven’t paid attention, even though the evidence is clear: if the Libertarian vote had gone Republican instead, the Republicans would have held their Senate seats in Oregon, Missouri and Montana over the past two cycles.

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM

As I said, if the Libertarians feel that helping to elect liberal Democrats is more in their interest than helping to elect Republicans, that’s their decision to make. I wasn’t crazy about McCain, but I was a lot less crazy about Obama.

ddrintn on July 1, 2009 at 7:15 PM

I just don’t think the Libertarians wield the widespread influence the Progressives did in the late 19th-early 20th centuri

OK…let me ask you this: for every one of us Libertarians who hauled ourselves out to the polling places to register our discontent with “moderate” Republicanism, how may disenchanted conservative voters just stayed home? 5? 10? 20? a thousand?

They didn’t make their voices heard. We did.

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 7:24 PM

OK…let me ask you this: for every one of us Libertarians who hauled ourselves out to the polling places to register our discontent with “moderate” Republicanism, how may disenchanted conservative voters just stayed home? 5? 10? 20? a thousand?

They didn’t make their voices heard. We did.

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 7:24 PM

Did you vote for Obama, or Barr?

ddrintn on July 1, 2009 at 7:28 PM

Did you vote for Obama, or Barr?

ddrintn on July 1, 2009 at 7:28 PM

I wrote in for Ron Paul and voted Libertarian down-ticket.

Barr is an odious opportunist with no political compass

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Did you vote for Obama, or Barr?

ddrintn on July 1, 2009 at 7:28 PM
I wrote in for Ron Paul and voted Libertarian down-ticket.

Barr is an odious opportunist with no political compass

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 7:42 PM

So who heard your voice?

ddrintn on July 1, 2009 at 9:06 PM

Romney is a RINO.

Deal with it.

bill30097 on July 1, 2009 at 10:28 PM

The more firepower aimed at Palin, the more I *know* that she is the one that the Dems fear most. And for good reason – unless something changes radically, I’m thinking our 45th president will be referred to as Madame President.

And an aside: Haters from the Far Left will be torn as to whether or not to put her official photo on classroom walls (as they demanded after the Obama inaugural), or inside their locker rooom doors, or *both*. ;-)

It is fun to watch the liberal brain sizzle like bacon in the morning.

itzWicks on July 2, 2009 at 8:48 AM

I was just looking at the CBS hit piece linked to by this site:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/politics/main5128672.shtml

Palin is correct in that they were slinging so much mud that it was important to attack them, the campaign sat back too much on this, but in this case Schmidt was correct.

Do not fall for the CBS attempt to make this much bigger than what it is, reading that article cries out to me as another hit piece by a corrupt media on Palin, its all snarky and suggestive making a mountain out of a mole hill, its a total snarky hit piece…

TrueBrit on July 2, 2009 at 11:27 AM