Next E! True Hollywood Story subject: Sarah Palin?

posted at 8:45 am on April 4, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Documentarian and political activist John Ziegler produced the definitive film on media bias in the 2008 presidential election, Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.  We may soon see significant portions of John’s film repurposed for another look at Sarah Palin both then and now in a television program in two weeks.  John tells me exclusively that E! Entertainment Channel has licensed his film for an upcoming “True Hollywood Story” look at Palin — and that Palin supporters may well be pleasantly surprised by the results.

According to John, E! will announce as early as today that the program will air on April 20th.  John also took the time to answer a few questions from me via e-mail:

Q: You documented terrible media bias against Sarah Palin in your documentary Media Malpractice…How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted, and that involved the major news organizations. Now you say E! is doing a “True Hollywood Story” on Sarah Palin which will air April 20th. That sounds like a media-bias nightmare. Should Palin supporters “be afraid — be very afraid”?

A: I totally agree that on paper this would seem to be a disaster waiting to happen. After all, Hollywood tends to be at least as politically biased as the news media, but I have a feeling Palin supporters might be pleasantly surprised.

I could be wrong and I have been fooled before by lefty media members pretending they will be fair to get access (Howard Kurtz immediately comes to mind), but the E! producer I dealt with on this was far more knowledgeable about what really happened to Palin during the 2008 campaign than any mainstream media member I have been interviewed by since the film came out, including Matt Lauer and Barbara Walters.

E! interviewed me for two hours and every question was dead on. I am sure that means that they will use all of 45 seconds, but at least the real truth got put into the mix. The producer told me I would be pleased with the results, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out. I am sure I will have some strong opinions when it does.

Q: I find it curious that E! hasn’t already announced this project, given its short time frame for promotion. Did you expect them to make a bigger splash with this?

A: I agree that it is weird that no word of this show has leaked either officially or unofficially until this interview with you. The legal paperwork they gave me indicates a debut date of April 20th and producers indicated recently that they were on track for that and that they would start publicizing it two weeks in advance, which would basically mean today.

Q: They have licensed parts of your documentary for use in their program. What do believe the focus will be, based on your interactions with them?

A: They licensed my interview with Sarah Palin for the film in a way that indicates that they intend to use a decent chunk of it. I know for sure that they intended to use her reactions to the condescending Charlie Gibson interview. I hope they address half of the misconceptions about the 2008 campaign that I discussed in my interview with them. I know that even the technical people (which always seems to happen in such interviews) were very interested to hear that the real Palin was very different than the one they have been told about by the media.

Q: Does this new E! program have anything to do with the start of pre-production of “Game Change,” the upcoming HBO miniseries? Have you heard from HBO at all?

A: Not that I am aware of. The “True Hollywood Story” is a documentary format while “Game Change” will be a docudrama.

I am quite sure that “Game Change” will be beyond outrageous in its depiction of Palin and will expose a massive double standard that obviously exists in Hollywood when it comes to the “rules” for docudrama. As we are seeing with the “Kennedys” mini-series and saw with “The Path to 9/11,” when liberals don’t like a historical drama they literally don’t even need a substantive reason to censor it and can absurdly claim that all conversations depicted need to 100 percent proven to be used. Somehow, I am quite sure that “standard” will suddenly be dropped when it comes to Palin and “Game Change.”

Q: Did the Palins get a chance to work with the E! producers?

A: I know that they were offered that chance, but like most subjects of “True Hollywood Story,” they declined, which was probably the right call. I do know that many friends from Sarah Palin’s pre-fame days did participate and the producers were very interested in that portion of her story.

Q: Based on your interactions again, were the producers aware of the problems with the media coverage of Palin from 2008 forward?

A: Surprisingly so. I was shocked that a producer from E! would know more about what really happened than those from the news media. After all, E! is not exactly known for substance and Hollywood isn’t really a place where people are usually allowed to have anything other than the Tina Fey vision of Sarah Palin. I don’t know what they will actually use, but they asked me about nearly every key piece of “Media Malpractice” that occurred against her. They had clearly watched my film and I think I changed the minds of at least two of the crew members. Let’s hope that comes across in the actual show.

Q: If Palin wants to run for President, she will have to address the narrative that the mainstream media have built over the last three years. Is this an opportunity to do that?

A: Assuming the show is as fair as I think it will be, it certainly could be. This show will be shown numerous times on a network whose demographic is full of women who are not political junkies. This is exactly the demo that Palin would have to get a second chance with if she has a chance to beat President Obama.

Obviously she and I have both been burned before by media outlets, but I have my fingers crossed on this.

It would certainly be ironic if the most fair look at the Palins comes from not a traditional news organization that claims objectivity, but from a channel that focuses on entertainment.  We’ll see what E! has to say later today, or this week.


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 2 3

You say my analysis doesn’t hold water, but you don’t even attempt to back that up. Fine.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 1:21 PM

“And of course in 2010 SP was McCain’s VP choice. So how many votes did she win? Who knows?” This is the extent of your “argument”. Let me spell it out for you, how ever many votes she “won” for the ticket it was certainly more than any of the vote totals your boys have racked-up anywhere, at any time, combined. Moreover, she has actually been on a national ticket and the first GOP woman to do so, ever. You are entitled to your opinion, but, yes, I don’t think your argument holds water.

littleguy on April 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Fair enough. Were you in favor of gay marriage being on the ballot in several swing states in 2004? There is good information indicating Rove pushed that and it wound up helping Bush beat Kerry.

It wasn’t a bad tactic, in 2004, IMHO. It would be a terrible tactic now, given how much worse we are fiscally.

Support for abortion, as you know, is split about evenly, but as a solid fiscal con, I would imagine you support defunding PP, no?

Yes, defund them.

And despite half the country thinking abortion should be legal, I think that many on the pro-choice side would find it extremely unpalatable that Obama twice voted against the Born alive Infant Protection Act. However, due to the standart media malpractice, most have no idea.

I don’t think that it would be wise to campaign on it.

I agree with you that it wouldn’t be helpful to have a Huckabee or someone up there treating the presidential podium like a pulpit, but I do think surgical use of social issues can help. Though we tend to notice that our wallets are empty first, all three legs of the conservative stool are on fire and we can walk and chew gum at the same time IMO.

Kataklysmic on April 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM

I don’t like the stool analogy. We are men and we walk on our own TWO feet. Stools (both the medical type and the furniture) go nowhere and accomplish nothing. Let’s be bipeds!

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Please, give us the data support your claim of 5 million. And also give us the data on how many voted against McCain/Palin because she was on the ticket. Data, not opinions.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Various exit polls placed the number of Republican voters who went and voted because Palin was on the ticket at anywhere from 8 to 10 million out of the roughly 59 million votes McCain got. I put the floor at 5 million because it’s certainly theoretically possible that those numbers were inflated.

Now I know what some of my fellow commenters might be thinking: “Didn’t he say that he doesn’t put much stock in polls?” True enough that I don’t. Palin’s performance in the 2008 elections is a minor consideration in my vote for her come 2012, but if she really was the reason for 8.3-16.9% of the votes that McCain did get, that ought to at least put to lie the idea that she was a ball-and-chain around McCain’s ankle.

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 1:39 PM

FIFY

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Yes, the old FIFY gag. The last refuge of those who can’t win an argument except, they think, by literally putting words in their opponent’s mouth. Bravo.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 1:41 PM

And also give us the data on how many voted against McCain/Palin because she was on the ticket. Data, not opinions.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I had to go back and look that up. The same polls all showed less than a million who stayed home and/or voted for Obama because of Palin.

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 1:42 PM

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 1:39 PM

I’m sorry, I don’t see any data there. I see SWAGs about 10 million here, 16% there. You can type any numbers you want, but unless you can show them to be accurate in any sense of the word, they mean nothing.

You mention the prospect of her being a ball and chain, going even further than I was willing to go without any data. Sorry, but this post of yours is sound and fury.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 1:44 PM

I’m sorry, I don’t see any data there. I see SWAGs about 10 million here, 16% there. You can type any numbers you want, but unless you can show them to be accurate in any sense of the word, they mean nothing.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Hold yourself to the same standard, then. Your numbers may or may not be accurate, but I think you assign them meaning based on your own biases that they don’t have.

As a for instance: The number of people who voted for Mitch Daniels vs. the number of people who voted for Sarah Palin. That has absolutely nothing to do with a candidate’s fitness for office, and yet you hold them up as “proof” that Palin is “unproven.” The only thing those numbers are “proof” of is that Palin was elected to office in a smaller state. Any other conclusions you choose to draw are exactly the same kind of “sound and fury” that you accuse me of.

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM

I’m sorry, I don’t see any data there. I see SWAGs about 10 million here, 16% there. You can type any numbers you want, but unless you can show them to be accurate in any sense of the word, they mean nothing.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Using your logic, where is the scientific data that proves ALL of the 59+ million votes were not intented for both candidates equally? Remember, no SWAGS and the data must be accurate — let’s say +-5%, to be fair. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

littleguy on April 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Drudge has an article about a review of Tina Fey’s memoirs and a full-length image of Fey in a dress. Tina Fey has cankles that rival Hillary’s.

bw222 on April 4, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Using your logic, where is the scientific data that proves ALL of the 59+ million votes were not intented for both candidates equally? Remember, no SWAGS and the data must be accurate — let’s say +-5%, to be fair. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

littleguy on April 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM

I think my putting the floor at five million rather than eight million was practically an admission that the numbers probably aren’t anywhere close to accurate. But then again, I tend to kind of assume that about exit polls.

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Yes, the old FIFY gag. The last refuge of those who can’t win an argument except, they think, by literally putting words in their opponent’s mouth. Bravo.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Actually I was correcting your false statement. But hey, be obtuse all you want. It’s the last refuge of the habitually incorrect.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 1:56 PM

1996 Wasilla Mayor Palin garners 650 votes
1999 Wasilla Mayor Palin garners 909 votes
2006 Alaska Governor Palin garners 114,697

MJBrutus forgot one;

2008 Vice-President of US Palin garners 59,934,814
AND Palin is the only potential GOP candidate who has actually run in a national general election.

Done That on April 4, 2011 at 2:00 PM

littleguy on April 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM

I answered that. There is no reliable data either way. So I excluded the Palin factor from the 2010 election (drew no conclusion one way or the other), since it is not measurable. Once again, it is those who support Palin who are creating straw men from the data. Well have fun with your straw men, but I won’t touch them.

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Source of data on Palin’s electoral history

That has absolutely nothing to do with a candidate’s fitness for office, and yet you hold them up as “proof” that Palin is “unproven.”

You are deliberately conflating issues. Her unproven electoral history is proof that she has an unproven electoral history. That’s all I used that data for.

So where’s your data?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:06 PM

MJBrutus forgot one;

2008 Vice-President of US Palin garners 59,934,814
AND Palin is the only potential GOP candidate who has actually run in a national general election.

Done That on April 4, 2011 at 2:00 PM

We have invited MJB to apply his own standard of “proof” to refute these facts and he is, no doubt, in the process of gathering the data for presentation at this very moment.

littleguy on April 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Done That on April 4, 2011 at 2:00 PM

You have not read the full thread. Sorry, but I won’t waste time retracing covered ground for late comers who won’t look at what I’ve said in this thread.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:10 PM

You are deliberately conflating issues. Her unproven electoral history is proof that she has an unproven electoral history. That’s all I used that data for.

So where’s your data?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:06 PM

You are moving the goalposts by claiming that there is a certain nebulous cutoff number, which you will not state for the record, and that number is the standard by which you can measure whether or not someone has an ‘unproven electoral history’. It is a logically flawed argument because you are the self-appointed arbiter of what is or is not ‘unproven’. If you measure Palin on sheer number of victories, she is well proven. You are actually creating a bias against Palin based on where she won her elections. That’s dishonest.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 2:11 PM

You are deliberately conflating issues. Her unproven electoral history is proof that she has an unproven electoral history. That’s all I used that data for.

So where’s your data?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Circular reasoning.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM

You are deliberately conflating issues. Her unproven electoral history is proof that she has an unproven electoral history. That’s all I used that data for.

So where’s your data?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Unproven electoral history =/= unfit for office. It is not me that is conflating issues. You believe that Palin will fail if she tries when there is only one way to really know for sure. Her successes are not of sufficient magnitude for you to be satisfied with her prospects, even though her raw numbers have more to do with the size of her home state than anything else.

I’ve got nothing to prove to you, punk. You can go take your SWAGS and “data” and shove in the wood chipper. If electoral prospects are how you choose your presidential candidates (and they are not how I choose mine), then you deserve four more years of Obama.

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM

I answered that. There is no reliable data either way. So I excluded the Palin factor from the 2010 election (drew no conclusion one way or the other), since it is not measurable. Once again, it is those who support Palin who are creating straw men from the data. Well have fun with your straw men, but I won’t touch them.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:06 PM

I understand you prefer straw men of your own making. The fact remains, your boys are no more “proven” when it comes to a national race than anyone else.

Palin also remains the only potential GOP candidate I know of who has actually been on a national ticket and the only GOP woman EVER to do so. This much we know to a certainty.

littleguy on April 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Drudge has an article about a review of Tina Fey’s memoirs and a full-length image of Fey in a dress. Tina Fey has cankles that rival Hillary’s.

bw222 on April 4, 2011 at 1:51 PM

No-talent hack job. Even WaPo said her autobio sucked.

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2011 at 2:18 PM

I read this with my usual skepticism but will pass it on and link back here. I am on mom duty so blogging is scarce thing for me to do today.

I am tempted to rant, but in the hope and faith that her personal “intelligentsia” as Rush puts it, and her political career will be redeemed I will keep my mouth shut.

-ProudPalinFan/TPE

ProudPalinFan on April 4, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Done That on April 4, 2011 at 2:00 PM
You have not read the full thread. Sorry, but I won’t waste time retracing covered ground for late comers who won’t look at what I’ve said in this thread.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:10 PM

I’ve been here long enough to see it would be a waste of MY time retracing your entire thread.

In her 2008 Vice-Presidential run Palin garnered 1,345,648 votes in Indiana AND
Palin is the only potential GOP candidate to run in a national general election.

Done That on April 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Nuance Nuance Nuance.
Look I’m sure there are several Republican white guys who would make a decent president, but it is time for the first Madame President and she needs to be a Republican.
We had to watch while the liberals foisted a completely inexperienced, incompetent, patsy liar on our great nation and it has become one of the worst presidential debacles in our history. Enough.
We got the high-road and the congress, now let’s turn their same tactics against them and use the novelty of a first woman president to elect an eminently more qualified, principled and capable American as our next president.
It’ll be worth watching the liberals’ heads explode like so much popcorn.

captconrad on April 4, 2011 at 2:25 PM

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Nonsense. The question comes down to whether one can reasonably scale up the experience of running for an office with 200,000 voters to one with 100,000,000 voters. Face it, collecting 100,000 votes says nothing significant about the ability collect 50 million. By comparison, collecting over a million votes provides a much better test of a candidate’s ability to run a national race.

50,000,000 / 100,000 = 500
50,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 50

So an Indiana governor would have to scale up his efforts by 50 times. One from Alaska would have to scale up 500 times. A win at a 1 to 50 scale says much more about electability than a win at 1 to 500 scale.

I will repeat for the hard of hearing. My one and only point is that claims that SP’s electoral history say anything about her chances to win a Presidential general election are wrong. It is too small a test to support the proposition.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:29 PM

It’ll be worth watching the liberals’ heads explode like so much popcorn.

captconrad on April 4, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Reason #761 to vote Palin: the mass self-deportation of liberals.

Kataklysmic on April 4, 2011 at 2:34 PM

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Your entire post is nonsense as you do not get to decide which numbers are important and which numbers are not. That’s circular reasoning – you’re saying “I’m right because I’m right.”

If I try to point out the number of elections she has won, you dismiss it (moving the goalposts) and demand that she meets the standard that YOU set.

Fail.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 2:35 PM

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Try engaging some common sense if you can. Suppose that she never ran for governor. Would you say that her win with 1,000 votes for Mayor says anything about her chances to win a Presidential bid? OK, you might, but no rational person would. Well I am saying that winning with 100,000 votes is just about as meaningless a basis for projecting electoral success in nation election.

Your arguments are getting more redundant and less interesting. If you can’t do better don’t expect another reply.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Try engaging some common sense if you can. Suppose that she never ran for governor. Would you say that her win with 1,000 votes for Mayor says anything about her chances to win a Presidential bid?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM

LOL. What if pigs could fly? As it stands, how many votes she received in the Mayoral race doesn’t mean squat to me. Nor does the number of votes Daniels or anyone else received in their last election either. You appear to be the only one on the planet who is actually concerned with these numbers. Personally, my vote will be based on more important factors — for example, do I believe this person would be a good president. If my choice wins by one vote or 20 million won’t matter to me.

littleguy on April 4, 2011 at 2:52 PM

littleguy on April 4, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Bully for you. For the very, very, very, very, very last time I will say this. My point in bringing this up is to debunk the prolific claims made by Palians that she has a relevant track record that justifies confidence in her chances of winning. She does not.

Now go out and vote for your more important factors.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Try engaging some common sense if you can. Suppose that she never ran for governor. Would you say that her win with 1,000 votes for Mayor says anything about her chances to win a Presidential bid? OK, you might, but no rational person would. Well I am saying that winning with 100,000 votes is just about as meaningless a basis for projecting electoral success in nation election.

Your arguments are getting more redundant and less interesting. If you can’t do better don’t expect another reply.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Ah, so now that I’ve called you on your goalpost-moving, you ask me to throw out her governor’s race? What a brainless, stubborn attempt at clinging to your logically flawed argument.

Once again, you cherrypick which stats are important to you.

If you’re tired of me being repetitive, why don’t you try using logic instead of trying to score cheap points with a biased interpretation of obscure statistics. As long as you continue down this path of failure, I will continue to expose you for the fraud you are.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Bully for you. For the very, very, very, very, very last time I will say this. My point in bringing this up is to debunk the prolific claims made by Palians that she has a relevant track record that justifies confidence in her chances of winning. She does not.

Now go out and vote for your more important factors.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:57 PM

You’re a legend in your own mind. Unfortunately, in here all you accomplished was making a fool of yourself. You didn’t convince anybody of your silly claims.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Now go out and vote for your more important factors.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 2:57 PM

How about you use something besides wikipedia for your “proof” and contact the State of Alaska Election Agency and ask for what Sarah Palin “voted” for. You can do that you know… it isn’t private information.

upinak on April 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Ah, so now that I’ve called you on your goalpost-moving, you ask me to throw out her governor’s race?

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM

I asked you to suppose it to make a simple point that you could not grasp (cue Louis Renault). You have officially used up the last of my patience. Feel free to continue arguing with yourself.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 3:01 PM

I asked you to suppose it to make a simple point that you could not grasp (cue Louis Renault). You have officially used up the last of my patience. Feel free to continue arguing with yourself.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Bye troll. Don’t forget to pick up your stats on the way out.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 3:06 PM

It would certainly be ironic if the most fair look at the Palins comes from not a traditional news organization that claims objectivity, but from a channel that focuses on entertainment.

Not really. E! is a channel that focuses heavily on celebrities for the sake of shallow celebrity worshipers, thus Palin would fit right in with their usual programming.

Hollowpoint on April 4, 2011 at 3:29 PM

So basically, in some people’s opinions, Sarah Palin is not worthy of consideration really bcs AK is a small place & the talent pool then must not be very big, so she just won cuz that’s the best little ol’ tiny AK had to offer.
Like the difference in the talent pools of Class A schools vs Class B schools when it comes to athletes?
So Class B school has what they think is superman & when superman goes to compete at a Class A game, he gets stomped?
Is this what we’re talking about here?
Bcs if it is, no one has nay way of knowing if that is true or not until that person actually gets to compete in the 1st place.
I am to understand a lot of people did not stay home for the last POTUS election bcs of Sarah.
I was one of them & I know many , among them some here at HA, who felt the same.
There is no way to know who voted for whom for whatever reason.
And of course all of these polls are meaningless when it gets right down to it.
In the end, let whoever in the hell wants to run in the primaries run. Bcs it is their right to do so.
And let the party members pick who they want to represent them.
End of story.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 3:30 PM

I can walk down the streets near where I live 24/7 and be secure that I’m not in harms way. It’s a friendly part of Sydney.
Crux Australis on April 4, 2011 at 9:58 AM

No offense, but I’m certain you know that you cannot count on how ‘nice’ & ‘friendly’ people may seem.
All I can say is I am sure glad I live in a country that I can carry in.
I do not base my safety on how nice the neighborhoods are.
No neighborhood is really very nice.
And besides.
That’s where criminals like to hang out.
With all those nice & docile people.;)

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Palin would fit right in with their usual programming.

Hollowpoint on April 4, 2011 at 3:29 PM

I see you’re just in time with your usual programming.

littleguy on April 4, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Sorry if I’m ignoring the 300 plus count of MJBrutus being a Palin Basher — (Nothing to see here; move along) — but I didn’t have time to troll –heh– the whole thread.

I’m just going to say I hope that E! does a fair representation, but I’m not going to hold my breath. Just like I hope the Middle Eastern Arab countries will all develop peaceful democracies. Ain’t wasting too much time on that hope either.

Tennman on April 4, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Sorry if I’m ignoring the 300 plus count of MJBrutus being a Palin Basher — (Nothing to see here; move along) — but I didn’t have time to troll –heh– the whole thread.

Tennman on April 4, 2011 at 3:58 PM

You didn’t miss much – he cherrypicked some stats to try to prove something that depended on definitions that only he was qualified to provide. When we called him out for it, he stalked off in high dudgeon.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 4:23 PM

You didn’t miss much – he cherrypicked some stats to try to prove something that depended on definitions that only he was qualified to provide.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 4:23 PM

And in the process, accused me of doing essentially the same thing.

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 4:34 PM

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 4:23 PM
gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Pretty much SOP for concern trolls. Don’t seem to have anything to say, but, man, they sure do say a lot.

Tennman on April 4, 2011 at 4:39 PM

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 4:23 PM
gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 4:34 PM
Tennman on April 4, 2011 at 4:39 PM

I must say, the self-congratulatory twaddle of the losers does make for some entertaining reading. I look forward to the ever-increasing heroics of our stalwart Palians as the legend snowballs!

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 4:43 PM

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Are you talkin’ to me? Are you talkin’ to ME?

Pffffft.

Go away, little man.

Tennman on April 4, 2011 at 5:17 PM

I look forward to the ever-increasing heroics of our stalwart Palians as the legend snowballs!

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 4:43 PM

You really sound excited. I hope your pants are on.

darwin on April 4, 2011 at 5:22 PM

darwin on April 4, 2011 at 5:22 PM

You type well with just one hand.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 5:31 PM

I must say, the self-congratulatory twaddle of the losers does make for some entertaining reading. I look forward to the ever-increasing heroics of our stalwart Palians as the legend snowballs!

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 4:43 PM

I haven’t lost anything yet, douchebag. Sarah Palin hasn’t decided whether she’s going to run or not and until she does, that is the most important uncertainty to me in this election cycle. You can dress it up in all your pretty polls and credible numbers, but I vote on principle.

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 5:31 PM

You type well with just one hand.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Seems even more amazing to me that you can type without using your brain.

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 5:33 PM

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Your smack down was very eloquent.
But MJ wold just say I’m a loser, or are stupid, or something.
IDK if being called a loser by a loser is really such a big deal.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 5:36 PM

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 4:43 PM

A “Palian”? Shouldn’t that be “Palinian?” Or is the connotation of “alien” too irresistible.

In any case, after your embarrassingly anti-empirical effort to turn her historic role on a national ticket (nevermind her historic victory in Alaska) into a case for her unprovable electoral appeal, I’m surprised you reappeared. I mean, that was a beatdown. But to try to pretend you’re looking forward to further thumpings may be a bridge too far.

rrpjr on April 4, 2011 at 5:38 PM

IDK if being called a loser by a loser is really such a big deal.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 5:36 PM

I don’t poke my head into every Sarah Palin thread cause I don’t believe Sarah Palin needs defending. But when it comes to defending myself against charges of rank stupidity? I’m soooo there.

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 5:43 PM

rrpjr on April 4, 2011 at 5:38 PM

I use it to connote that Palians are the new Paulians.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 6:04 PM

I use it to connote that Palians are the new Paulians.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 6:04 PM

That’s funny…I hear “Ronulans” and “Paulnuts” quite a bit, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone refer to “Paulians,” at least not derisively. I might just be out of the loop, but then again, “Palinuts” or “Palinulans” just don’t have the same ring, do they?

gryphon202 on April 4, 2011 at 6:10 PM

I must say, the self-congratulatory twaddle of the losers does make for some entertaining reading. I look forward to the ever-increasing heroics of our stalwart Palians as the legend snowballs!

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Name calling is the last refuge of those who have lost the argument.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Name calling is the last refuge of those who have lost the argument.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Actually, Marcus Junius Brutus’s tactic of last resort is to tell those with whom he disagrees that they should die.

steebo77 on April 4, 2011 at 6:36 PM

I use it to connote that Palians are the new Paulians.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Ron Paul is nuts.
Sarah Palin is not.
Those of us who can find good things about Ron Paul are not nuts. But insisting his mantra on foreign affairs, for instance, is the right way to go, is pretty nuts.
Liking Sarah and admiring her attributes & accomplishments is not being nuts over Palin.
I do recall that one of the tactics from the left is to demonize.
You’re doing a very good impression of a lefty troll right now.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 6:37 PM

steebo77 on April 4, 2011 at 6:36 PM

As I recall, its words to you were:
ES&D. Am I correct?
Bcs I think that’s really crappy to say to someone here.
Sorta almost like a candidate for a banning offense.
But then I don’t get paid the big blogger bucks.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 6:38 PM

As I recall, its words to you were:
ES&D. Am I correct?
Bcs I think that’s really crappy to say to someone here.
Sorta almost like a candidate for a banning offense.
But then I don’t get paid the big blogger bucks.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 6:38 PM

I prefer GTH because most people are anyway, and it doesn’t imply when. :)

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 6:39 PM

As I recall, its words to you were:
ES&D. Am I correct?
Bcs I think that’s really crappy to say to someone here.
Sorta almost like a candidate for a banning offense.
But then I don’t get paid the big blogger bucks.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Actually, “ES&D, MoFo.”

steebo77 on April 4, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Actually, “ES&D, MoFo.”

steebo77 on April 4, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Wow he’s a real POS isn’t he.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 6:46 PM

I prefer GTH because most people are anyway, and it doesn’t imply when. :)

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 6:39 PM

LOL! I often wonder if THIS existence is he!!.

steebo77 on April 4, 2011 at 6:42 PM

That’s the one.
$hit comes in all stinks & sizes.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 6:53 PM

I work next to a woman who isn’t happy at all with Obama’s performance. She said, however, that she would vote against Palin because she [Palin] is stupid.

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Right…but see, I think you’re logic is flawed.

I’ve seen this same sentence used about people who supported Obama in 2008 but have soured on him… but would never EVER vote for Palin because of [fill in media lie about Palin here].

This is supposed to suggest that Palin’s negatives are so strong because of the left’s constant barrage but it ignores the obvious fallacy in logic. People who loved Obama before… diehards…changed their minds. Why? Because they saw the reality differed from what the media presented of him. They changed their minds because the lie was exposed to the truth.

In other words, opinions…even strongly held ones… can and do change all the time when new evidence or truths come to light that make us rethink previously held beliefs or opinions.

So the lie here is that Sarah Palin is stupid. Well, you know what? She isn’t stupid. Far from it.

And if/when Palin is a candidate, and she has a platform…and she campaigns around the country and gives stump speeches…

…when she gives a solid performance during debates and shows she knows what she’s talking about, has thought through tough issues and has ideas and plans to deal with those issues…

Then people who’ve seen nothing more of Palin than the Tina Fey caricature will see for themselves that she is not what the left made her to be.

The response to a lie is not to cower from it or fear it. The response to a lie is to boldly present the truth and then let people decide for themselves whether or not to accept that truth or bitterly cling to the leftist mirage.

powerpro on April 4, 2011 at 7:04 PM

The response to a lie is not to cower from it or fear it… powerpro on April 4, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Excellent.

rrpjr on April 4, 2011 at 8:46 PM

powerpro on April 4, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Why are you lecturing me? I’m not the one who thinks that. Preach to the choir much?

fossten on April 4, 2011 at 9:15 PM

The response to a lie is not to cower from it or fear it. The response to a lie is to boldly present the truth and then let people decide for themselves whether or not to accept that truth or bitterly cling to the leftist mirage.

Well put! I think if there is any single characteristic I admire in Palin is her willingness to “boldly present the truth” while other politicians wait to see what the prevailing consensus of public opinion is before making a “principled” stand.

I abhor those cowardly, milk toast, career politicians who have to wait to see which way the wind blows before committing to an action or policy. We are in a war against pernicious forces at home and abroad, and we need a warrior who understands this.

The very future of this country, if not the world, is at stake, for the enemies of freedom have made tremendous strides against us during the Obama administration. Just undoing the damage will be a herculean task, comparable to cleaning out the Stygian stables, not to mention dealing with the myriad of additional challenges that are sure to present themselves.

Palin has the courage few seem to possess, especially among politicians. The fact that she is still standing at all after the tidal wave of criticism she has been subjected to speaks volumes in her behalf. Should she run, she will have my complete support. Go Sarah!

ariel on April 4, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Why are people harping on Alaska’s size? The only difference between a smaller and larger population group is the numbers of bureaucratic layers you have to deal with.

Lunatrope on April 4, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3