Jim Treacher on June 18, 2009 at 2:01 AM
.
I hope that you have come back here this one last time.
.
You are a writer with many gifts. He!!, you can deliver more zingers in one hour than most people can disperse in a month. Play to your strengths and focus that powerful gift of yours on the soft tyranny we see coming at the American public. I will acknowledge that you’ve done it the past but pick a target and dismantle their argument with your humorous cutting edge zingers. Be relentless in your persuit of pointing out the hypocracies that exist today with the individuals or of a groups past statements or positions. Be factual and precise and have a standard of principles that other individuals will applaud and admire. I will only forewarn you that you must have your house in order first (zinging them without being accused of hypocracy. Be zinger neutral by providing a set of standards of like nobody else can). Thinking they could be called “Jim Treacher’s rules of engagement”. Those who try to make an argument with no means of support and lacking a foundation in the guidelines provided by your manifesto shall be addressed accordingly. Jim Treacher’s rules of engagement (JTROE) could be the document that defends those from being attacked wrongly by showing that the group or indiviuals attacking are they themselves hypocrytes. I think I have said enough now. It is up to you Jim. Take what I say to you as a positive rather that a negative. Your a good man and this world needs minds like yours. Use those gifts and bump it up a notch. I only have best wishes for you if you decide to add this to your parlance and writings in the future.
.

Americannodash on June 17, 2009 at 11:31 PM

I understand what you’re saying.

Jim Treacher on June 17, 2009 at 9:53 PM
.
The wordsmith that you usually display on a daily basis is lacking, I know that you could have come up with a better words than faint disapproval. Faint disapproval from my point of view does not come to mind but outright distain of your positioned opinion may have been a better choice. By the way, are you getting a lot of positive feedback about encouraging your point of view on this matter? I mean besides my positive input to you.

Americannodash on June 17, 2009 at 11:34 AM

I detect a faint note of disapproval.

You don’t think she’d know by now that she needs to call them out on that? Remind them that they’d never in a million years ask Biden such questions, let alone Obama?

If she avoids opportunities because someone else might use them dishonestly, what’s the point of being in public office?

Jim Treacher on June 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Remember, I’m not saying don’t ever do it, I’m just saying don’t do it right now, when the left and the big media (OK, an admitted redundancy) are drooling at the prospect of paying Palin back as soon as possible. That’s when one of those “gotcha” questions gets tossed in there and then touted by Letterman’s supporters as helping to somehow at least prove his point that she’s no better than a “Slutty Flight Attendant”. And as long as there are no shots at Bristol or Willow, the media will say the questions are fair, no matter how obscure they are.

Wait a few months, to the point that if they’re going to try and pull the same crap, they’ll have to gin up the hype from about a 1.5 on a scale of 1-10 on the heavy rotation pop culture scale, and their actions at trying to get back at Sarah will seem far more obvious. Doing it now, they could justify the hype and ensuing spin by saying everyone wants to see Letterman confront Palin and they’re just giving the public what they want.

Jim Treacher on June 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM
.
So says Jim Treacher political strategist. Oh yes, Let’s all listen to Jim political advice for a sitting governor. Oh yes, ignore Charle Krauthammer and listen to Jim Treacher by all means. I leaning toward Charles K myself, but for the rest of you go ahead and take Jim Treacher’s advise. ——> NOT!!!.

My problem would be more that if she went on right now, Dave would try and do a straight interview in the O’Reilly style, with a couple of “What’s the Gross National Product of Uzbekistan?” style queries thrown in to make sure there’s at least one “Palin is an idiot” soundbytes for the next day’s TV shows.

jon1979 on June 17, 2009 at 7:57 AM

You don’t think she’d know by now that she needs to call them out on that? Remind them that they’d never in a million years ask Biden such questions, let alone Obama?

If she avoids opportunities because someone else might use them dishonestly, what’s the point of being in public office?

I am tempted to wonder if those who seem to think Letterman really gave a sincere apology have been nipping at the Obama koolaid. Or have some of you turned naive enough to think that anyone in Letterman’s demographic will suddenly be willing to look beyond the stereotype. Unfortunately too many of them are like him – a waste of space & air. Should she also start blogging at the Daily Kos?

I thought all the pundits were harping about how Gov Palin needs to increase her “gravitas,” how she needs to show she has an understanding of issues on the national level, how she needs to go on serious news programs. I fail to see how going on a late night show emceed by a proven liberal AH does any of that.

This country is lying face-down in the gutter.

Unfortunately, RCP is not posting comments. It looks like the comments are open until you try to publish them. But Young brought up Ted Nugent on Hillary Clinton. My take…

At least Nugent made his remarks on political merit; Hillary Clinton and most Democrats are gun grabbers . (Look at the piece by Jesse Jackson in the Chicago Sun-Times. ) That was nothing compared to the assault leveled at Hillary by her party when she dared to run against the first black president.

Politics can get ugly when you stand in the way of ambition. Hillary got ceaselessly beat up on until she laid down and got back with the program. Then the left went after Sarah Palin, and they will not relent until 2012. They want their historic president in for two terms, pushing policies that will hurt our great country, and if the ends justify the means, they will say or do anything to Palin, her family — even her special needs baby, as we’ve seen. The rapes jokes about 14 YO Willow were, sadly, more typical than not of this party that professed to stand for equal opportunity, but in actuality stands for brutal opportunism and the kind of appalling class strife that has nothing to with the America I knew.

Patrick on June 17, 2009 at 3:34 AM

Nichole? Ms Wallace? Is that you?

What’s with this suggestion that Palin wouldn’t be able to cut it in an interview with Letterman? It’s especially baffling since it seems like a lot of that view is coming from some of the very people who would support her for higher office, 2012 or beyond. What makes you think she couldn’t handle a clown on late night TV, but could handle a belligerent foreign leader?

Patrick on June 17, 2009 at 3:34 AM

My problem would be more that if she went on right now, Dave would try and do a straight interview in the O’Reilly style, with a couple of “What’s the Gross National Product of Uzbekistan?” style queries thrown in to make sure there’s at least one “Palin is an idiot” soundbytes for the next day’s TV shows.

Remember, Letterman is apparently a guy who actually thinks Keith Olbermann knows what he’s talking about. If Palin were to go on any time in the near future it would be not only an event, but one that all of Dave’s anti-Palin associates would be telling him he has to challenger her with Clown Nose Off, because it’s too dangerous for The World Itself to let her get away with this (Letterman’s two jokes about Palin on Tuesday night’s show indicate he’s not going to let this go, and there’s still a lot of anger seething inside. If she’s going to go on, let it be several months down the line, where if he decides to go full-Olby on her, while saying since the kids aren’t mentioned, it’s OK, it will be long enough since the controversy that it will come across more as an unprovoked attack by a bitter old man, no matter how the big media tries to spin it).

aikidoka on June 17, 2009 at 7:13 AM
.
Oh yes, the neener neener you reacted the same way too bit. That will really make a big splash. Sarah will no doubt take the high ground concerning this matter. Class is classic and should always remain so. End of story.

I’m fine with either one, but that would indeed be sweet.

Jim Treacher on June 16, 2009 at 5:09 PM

I agree. She could also remind Dave her family simply reacted the way he did when he went off on Stern for talking about his gf some years ago.

RegularJoe on June 17, 2009 at 6:30 AM
.
Free? Tell us who is going to foot the bill for this FREE flight to NY & back to Alaska. This does not include all the other cost that will be incurred. Look to my prior post on this thread & get back to me, Will you?

I hear you there. I think Sarah can handle him just fine, and I think it’s possible that she could gain something out of it, but I keep coming back to why bother with jokeboy?

Brian1972 on June 17, 2009 at 3:58 AM

For the same reason everyone else goes there — they draw large audiences, and give the guest a chance to promote their movie, song, candidacy, or whatever. A lot of potential movie-goers, music buyers and VOTERS watch these shows, and any chance to address them — FOR FREE — should be taken.

What’s with this suggestion that Palin wouldn’t be able to cut it in an interview with Letterman? It’s especially baffling since it seems like a lot of that view is coming from some of the very people who would support her for higher office, 2012 or beyond. What makes you think she couldn’t handle a clown on late night TV, but could handle a belligerent foreign leader?

Patrick on June 17, 2009 at 3:34 AM

I hear you there. I think Sarah can handle him just fine, and I think it’s possible that she could gain something out of it, but I keep coming back to why bother with jokeboy?

I’m inclined to think that her time is better spent handling the media types, the ones that at least claim some credibility on the serious policy issues, the way she dealt with Matt Lauer and Wolf Blitzer. That seems to me to be more worthy of the effort. People like Letterman always can retreat to their stupid nonsense when they get cornered on something meaningful. That is his escape hatch, “look at me, the goofy white guy!”, while Matt and Wolfy had nowhere to go when Sarah did her thing there.

It just feels wrong to reward his buffoonery with an appearance. I think the “apology” has been rewarded with the public acceptance, and that should be it. He has more to gain than she does, IMHO. There are plenty of other ways she can reach people and change the false perceptions about her without giving him the benefit of her star power, which he has spent the last few months trying to undermine.

That’s just how I feel about it now. If there is an announcement next week, Palin on Letterman Tuesday Night, then I’ll think she has decided to use the opportunity as you suggest, and perhaps it would be worth it after all. Sarah can certainly charm and disarm people face to face very effectively. I just don’t trust celebrity asskissers, they are a shifty bunch.

The anger over this episode is pretty remarkable, even now isn’t it?

True, I don’t have your calm detachment and analytical eye.

Jim Treacher on June 17, 2009 at 2:57 AM
.
Irony, I see what you did there.

That’s what happens when you go up against a pro. You end up being the joke. You can’t say you weren’t warned.

Moesart on June 16, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Would that be the “pro” who lost sponsors over this?

Go back to being funny.

When was this???

You proved to me in some of your writings that you don’t think things through.

Americannodash on June 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM

True, I don’t have your calm detachment and analytical eye.

You’re both wrong – the correct usage is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwYpSCrlHU

massrighty on June 16, 2009 at 10:59 PM

I stand corrected. Darn cows!

Misogyny. If you want to be taken seriously, learn how to spell.

B26354 on June 16, 2009 at 11:12 PM

I also stand corrected on the spelling of “misogyny.” Now that we’ve fixed that single word, anything you’d like to say about this post on its merits?

Jim Treacher on June 16, 2009 at 11:28 PM

Facts? Read my prior post today. Go back to being funny. Your performance on exposing David was fine and the objective was obtained. Let Sarah consider what Sarah should do from this day forward. You proved to me in some of your writings that you don’t think things through. You are not the best at political strategies. Sarah will take it from here. Take that under advisement.
.
I left out some letters. I don’t have spellcheck.

Americannodash on June 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM

I believe it means he could find no flaw with the content of the original post, so he jumped on the mis-spelled word.

Mind you, I agree that everyone should spell accurately, but this strikes me as a case of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

RegularJoe on June 16, 2009 at 11:49 PM

I think you may be right – the comment (which may or may not have been aimed at me,) has me stumped.
My post was a joke – a takeoff on the Mute/Moot dialog further up the thread (and a link to Joey Tribiani’s view on the “moot point.”

I just didn’t understand B26354′s post – and was hoping it would be clarified.

I don’t know about you guys, but when the facts change, I change my opinion.

Jim Treacher on June 16, 2009 at 11:28 PM

.
Facts? Read my prior post today. Go back to being funny. You performance on exposing David was fine an the objective was obtained. Let Sarah consider what Sarah should do from this day forward. You proved to me in some of your writings that you don’t think things through. You are not the best at political strategies. Sarah will take it from here. Take that under advisement.

Misogyny. If you want to be taken seriously, learn how to spell.

B26354 on June 16, 2009 at 11:12 PM

Not sure what this means.

massrighty on June 16, 2009 at 11:15 PM

I believe it means he could find no flaw with the content of the original post, so he jumped on the mis-spelled word.

Mind you, I agree that everyone should spell accurately, but this strikes me as a case of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

I don’t know about you guys, but when the facts change, I change my opinion.

Jim Treacher on June 16, 2009 at 11:28 PM

You’re in good company Jim, since that sentiment has been attributed to both David Mamet, and John Maynard Keynes.

Great minds apparently work alike, too.

What a colossal, breath-takeingly stupid idea that is.

I could see him traveling to Juneau and interview her in the hallway outside her office.

That would be worth putting batteries in the remote for.

Wrong. His fans and the left have accepted his apology, and Bristol is still joke fodder for them.

Not for him. Not ever again.

Besides, as already mentioned, Palin has said she won’t go on.

JimC on June 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM

That was when it looked like he wasn’t going to apologize.

I don’t know about you guys, but when the facts change, I change my opinion.

It’s in his best interest, professionally speaking, to appear as evenhanded as possible with her.

Wrong. His fans and the left have accepted his apology, and Bristol is still joke fodder for them. Besides, as already mentioned, Palin has said she won’t go on. The part about not contributing to his ratings was very smart. It’s a subtle and effective insult, regardless of the fact that it isn’t true, because the unspoken message is that she doesn’t need him, which IS true. Remember how Oprah said she didn’t understand why she wouldn’t go on her show after the election? She has her answer.

They have 2 major (all things considered) wins: NOW condemned him, and an advertiser withdrew from the CBS site. I’m sure CBS got the message. Palin’s right to just let it sink in everywhere else. Making nice will totally enable further attacks on her. Escalating the attacks on Letterman will produce a backlash.

The thing is, she can stay in Alaska and do Today, GMA, Meet The Press, whatever. I think people need to get out of this mode that she need to prove she needs to prove she can handle the Dave Lettermans of the world. They will never give her a break, and frankly she doesn’t need it.

Misogyny. If you want to be taken seriously, learn how to spell.

B26354 on June 16, 2009 at 11:12 PM

Not sure what this means.

But, I see this is a mute point…
Mcguyver on June 16, 2009 at 5:49 PM

I assume you mean “moot point.”
Patrick on June 16, 2009 at 5:57 PM

Mute? Moot?

You’re both wrong – the correct usage is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwYpSCrlHU

Ev’ry time we looked around
There he was, that hairy hound
From Budapest.
Never leaving us alone,
Never have I ever known
A ruder pest
Fin’lly I decided it was foolish not to let him have his chance with her,
So I stepped aside and let him dance with her!

From what I’ve seen lately, Palin can pass this test.