A measure of the impact Palin made with her speech is the hilariously slanted and bubbleheaded piece the New York Times felt compelled to write about it.

Doctor Zero on September 24, 2009 at 9:51 PM

Wow. Apparently Gail Collins is the pen name for Meghan McCain moonlighting. She actually refers to lessons learned from a character on a TV show.

They could make a movie about her: Clueless, the East Coast Edition

I have to give Sarah Palin kudos for her efforts as a private citizen, she is a great representative of Lady Liberty and hope she will continue her (our) crusade.

You are becoming legend!

Bequeath yourself thy own domain, from which to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their pathetic trolls!

And God help Ahmadinejad in 2013. }:>

Now to reread the post… it is that good!

Doctor Zero on September 24, 2009 at 9:51 PM

I think I’m in love. Please start a blog!!!

As Feddie said, “give the bayonet to relativism, suh!”

Doctor Zero, you need to start your own blog. This piece, and every other thing I’ve read by you is fantastic.

roger wilco on September 24, 2009 at 5:33 PM

I have been thinking about doing that. I’ve got to make sure I understand the rules about cross-posting, and invest the time to get it set up and maintained properly. I’m keenly aware of how much work Ed and Allah do to keep this place humming along smoothly, and how wonderful it is that, so far, all I’ve had to do is write something and click “Publish.”

Well, Doctor, apparently she isn’t cool because her polling numbers are awful!

deidre on September 24, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Coolness and polling numbers are not the same thing, and poll numbers can change quickly. Just ask the guy in the Oval Office.

I would imagine polling data for a private citizen must be exceptionally volatile. If you’re an elected official, especially the President, you’ve always got a variety of irons in the fire – you lose support for mistake A, but some of your constituents still love you for position B, and tomorrow you’ll be rolling out exciting new policy initiative C.

When you’re a private citizen, your position will be largely determined by sequential speeches or written work, and public opinion will shift rapidly – particularly when you produce something that really impacts the popular consciousness, one way or the other.

A measure of the impact Palin made with her speech is the hilariously slanted and bubbleheaded piece the New York Times felt compelled to write about it. The Times is very predictable in the way it reacts to conservatives. They would rather have ignored Palin to death, but instead they moved to stage 2, and unleashed the sub-Dowd talent to slam her – with their fingers crossed that none of their readers will actually stumble across an unbiased account that includes the raves Palin earned, or (horrors!) actually read a transcript.

Check out that Times piffle, and notice what is conspicuously absent from it: a link to, or even direct quote from, the speech itself. I wouldn’t have dreamed of writing my article for Hot Air without quoting from both Obama and Palin, and linking to the best transcripts I could find, but apparently this is beyond the journalistic ability of the New York Times. Times readers are supposed to put their faith in the same paper that never heard of ACORN until two kids with video cameras blew it to pieces, and never bothered to mention the communist conspiracy nut in the Green Czar position until the day after he resigned. Trust Gail Collins, folks: it was a well-prepared and boring speech, by a woman who has deep thoughts about trout.

The Times is a shadow of its former self, but it still has tremendous influence over other mainstream media outlets. Let’s see what happens to Palin’s numbers if she does decide to run for office again, and more people hear what she’s actually saying, instead of what the Ministry of Truth wants them to hear.

Thank you, Doctor Zero. Commentary well done. BTW, you are not Doctor Zero in my book–you are Doctor One Hundred. I’ve yet to read a post by you that disappoints.

this woman gave a lecture on what the consitution is and why it was founded the way it was in china. the sad thing is not many understood that. The founders understood human nature and made a document to curtail the negative aspects of that human nature the best they could. And to enshrine the positives of human nature the same. The document has lasted +200 years with little need for change for that reason and that reason alone. They understood human nature.

You could be leader of the free world. I’d follow you off a cliff.

amkun on September 24, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Careful. AP might call you a cultist.