Green Room

Sarah Palin Makes Liberals Act Like Weirdos

posted at 6:33 pm on December 9, 2010 by

For some odd reason, Sarah Palin causes liberal elites to rabidly foam at the mouth. Professor William Jacobson of the blog Legal Insurrection wrote an insightful piece about how conservatives seem to reflexively defend Palin, because liberals seem to be perpetually attacking her. Furthermore, not only do liberals seem to revel in finding weird reasons to attack Sarah Palin, but they also seem to only be happy when they are attacking her family as well (probably because they see them as little “spawns of Sarah”). Now, why is this? I haven’t a clue. However, I can state beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s not helping them.

For example, a couple of days ago, comediennes Kathy Griffin and Margret Cho both attacked Bristol Palin as “fat”–although Cho was a little more subtle about it than Griffin was. (Robert Stacy McCain wrote an excellent piece about both incidents here.) In fact, Griffin was dumb enough to trash Bristol Palin and refer to her as “the white Precious” in front of a group of servicemen who promptly booed her.

Question–does Ms. Griffin not know her audience at all? These are not liberal elites, like Bill Maher, who think that it’s OK to call Bristol Palin a “Hillbilly Heroine”. These are US soldiers who won’t find calling someone’s twenty year old daughter “fat” at all funny.

Moreover, a few weeks ago comedienne Sandra Bernhard called Bristol Palin a “hooker” on Joy Behar’s show because she placed in the finals on Dancing With the Stars. (Ms. Behar seemed very distressed, herself, and said that “Fred and Ginger died last night”.)

Surprising to say, Behar and Bernhard weren’t the only liberals to get so wee-weed up over Bristol Palin making it to the finals on Dancing With the Stars. Washington Post columnist, Sally Quinn, wrote a long piece about how her head was about to explode because Bristol Palin made it to the finals of Dancing With the Stars. Ann Althouse best described Quinn’s disingenuous hyperventilating when she wrote the following:

And this strangely sanctimonious journalist — she’s writing in the always awful “On Faith” section of The Washington Post — condemns Palin voters for “cheating” 7 paragraphs after she confesses to doing something that is at least as much cheating as what the Palin fans are said to be doing.

“Not only that, but I vote. Under the show’s rules, you’re allowed to vote five times on one line. I have six lines at home and my cell, so I vote as many times as I can for my favorite. “

So this lady, this longtime Washington powerbroker, has 6 phone lines, and she maxes each line out, each week, voting 30 times. But that’s the show’s rules. They can’t tell how many individuals vote are voting. They can only see phone numbers. So if your family of 5 watches the show and you — you economic losers — only have one phone, you can make 5 calls. Sally Quinn happens to have 6 phone lines, so she gets 30 votes — under the rules.

“Commenters on the conservative blog Hillbuzz.org said they had figured out how to enter more votes than the rules allow by creating fake e-mail addresses. One person posting on Hillbuzz said “Lord have mercy, I voted for three hours online! I got 300 in.”

What is a “fake e-mail address”? The rules say you are allowed 5 votes from each email address, just as you are allowed 5 votes from each phone number. Some people have multiple phone numbers and some have multiple email addresses. What’s the difference? All I can think of is that you have to spend money to have multiple phone numbers, and you can get multiple email accounts free. It feels so right for rich folk to get more. I love when liberals slip up like that.

Question–hey Lefties, first of all, you have to know that calling Bristol Palin a “fat hooker” is not a good way to win friends and influence people, right? I mean, Bristol Palin probably wears a size six or a size eight–most American women wear a size ten (Marilyn Monroe wore a size twelve). Do you really think that calling the majority of American women “fat” is a winning strategy for you?

Second of all, you guys do realize that this is just a television show and that normal people don’t freak out or want to shoot the TV because Bristol Palin won, right? Full disclosure here–I’ve never seen an episode of Dancing With the Stars (I’ve watched clips on YouTube), but if one of the Obama girls happen to make it to the finals in a few years, I would be quite happy for her (even if she wasn’t that great of a dancer).

Now, having your head explode over Bristol Palin making it to the finals on Dancing With the Stars is not the only symptom of Palin Derangement Syndrome–apparently, Sarah Palin’s Facebook postings are enough to give a lot of liberals the vapors. For instance, Andrew Sullivan recently wrote a piece whining about Sarah Palin mocking Barack Obama’s famous “57 states gaffe”, and accused her of “trashy behavior” (but, he didn’t say what was “trashy” about her behavior).

[Hey Andrew, by "trashy behavior", do you mean spreading internet rumors that a woman's baby is not really her own, and is that of her teenage daughter? Because that would be you Andrew, not Sarah Palin. But, I digress.]

Well, if Sullivan had any sense of humor at all, he would have written that Palin’s Facebook post was funny and admitted that she had a point that the media tends to give Obama a pass on his gaffes, but tends to hammer everyone else on theirs (as even SNL pointed out during the Democratic primary). Normal people like people who can laugh at themselves and respond very well to self-deprecating humor.

However, Sullivan was not only upset by Sarah Palin’s recent Facebook post, but her daughter Willow’s as well (where she gets involved with trash-talk with another teenager when she defends her sister Bristol). First of all, does Sullivan realize that Willow Palin is a sixteen year old girl, and that normal Americans find it to be very strange and distasteful when grown men pick on other people’s children? Even Jon Stewart told liberals to back off and to “stop making me feel sorry for the Palins”.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones’ Bayonne
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Second of all, does Sullivan realize how weird it is to obsess over Sarah Palin and her family’s Facebook postings? I mean, Sarah Palin was only a vice-presidential nominee –she was never even the vice-president. You don’t see us conservatives obsessing over Joe Leiberman’s or John Edward’s Facebook postings, much less their kids Facebook postings. This is very strange behavior. I would suggest that if reading the Palin family’s Facebook postings upsets you so much, then stop reading them.

Finally, speaking of weird behavior, Charles Blow recently wrote a column about how he wasn’t going to talk about Sarah Palin anymore, but then spent the entire column writing about how much Sarah Palin sucks. Hey Charles, I thought that you said that you weren’t going to talk about Sarah Palin anymore? You see, if most people say that they aren’t going to talk about someone anymore, then they just don’t talk about them anymore–they don’t proceed to, then, write an entire column about how terrible the person is.

In fact, this column of Blow’s is almost as weird as Keith Olbermann naming Bristol Palin his “Worst Person in the World”, or Aaron Sorkin comparing Sarah Palin to Michael Vick for hunting a Caribou. (I’m sure that the millions of hunters all across America deeply appreciate that comparison.) Oh, and Keith, really???!! Bristol Palin is your “Worst Person in the World”? Not Kim Jong-Il, not Ahmadinajad, but Bristol Palin for discussing abstinence?! No, that’s not at all strange to most Americans. (Rolls eyes.)

So, in conclusion, this whole Palin Derangement Syndrome definitely hurt the Left during the past mid-term election, and is continuing to hurt them now. Why? Well, for two obvious reasons. First of all, during the last election, it appeared as if liberals were spending way too much time speaking out against the Palins (none of whom were on the ballot), and not enough time explaining why people should vote for Obama’s policies and liberal candidates. Throughout the previous election, PDS proved to be a huge distraction for the Left.

Second of all, constantly attacking someone’s children as “fat, trashy, hookers” seems, well, quite mean to normal, well-adjusted Americans who aren’t weirdos. Most Americans think that mean people suck and don’t want to vote for a party that seems to embrace nastiness. Hey, you can listen to me, or you can continue smacking around Sarah Palin and her kids. The choice is yours. However, I just have one question for you guys. How did that PDS work out for you in the last election?

This column is cross-posted from Parcbench, and it is also posted at Right Wing News, The Minority Report and Hillbillypolitics.

Recently in the Green Room:

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

tee-hee.

it’s really the lefties that get all hot over Palin.

sure.

audiculous on December 9, 2010 at 8:04 PM

audiculous on December 9, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Yeah, sure.

All that documentation and linked evidence in the very long post above never existed.

Sure.

Brian1972 on December 9, 2010 at 11:56 PM

The reason for PDS is a condition called cognitive dissonance. When the truth of someones beliefs are shown to be false then the person experiences anxiety to the extent that those beliefs are important to them. People then resort to various means to intellectually and emotionally reject the offending evidence. For a minor example, a person who sees themselves as not a good student ends up with a A in a course. They then explain it away with whatever excuse comes to mind: they fooled the teacher, it was just dumb luck, etc.

Sarah’s views and the entire way she has lived her life and achieved one success after another not only in politics but financially and personally as well is a living testament that the liberal left’s looney theory of how a woman is supposed to act in order to be successful is all wrong.

So they HAVE TO attack her, her family, and everything she stands for in order to try and resolve the inner turmoil that her mere existance creates in them. At each stage of Sarah’s assent they have tried to explain away her achievements and each time they thought they were done with her she has another big success forcing them to resort to further rationalizations and attacks which have now become almost comical by their desparateness to find some way of dismissing her. Yet she continues to rise the more they attack her. They may even realize this but because of their problem with the cognitive dissonance she creates within them they can’t help themselves.

Leon Festinger was the psychologist who discovered and named this important concept. In his original research he observed religious groups who predicted that the end of the world would happen on a certain date. He would join them on the appointed end date of the world and when that didn’t happen he would observe how they explained that to themselves and each other and how it effected their belief in their now challanged religion. From such observations he developed his theory of cognitive dissonance.

shmendrick on December 10, 2010 at 12:16 AM

dear Brian1972,

there’s plenty of things coming at Palin from the left, but the obsession with Palin, and the writing about Palin, and the huge amounts of money thrown at Palin for her speeches and ghosted books, and the absurd puffing of her into something that she clearly is not is from the other direction.

audiculous on December 10, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Whoa, excellent comment Shmendrick. You learn something new everyday.

Take care. :-)

XoXo, Suzi

Susannah Fleetwood on December 10, 2010 at 1:56 AM

nice piece

cmsinaz on December 10, 2010 at 6:41 AM

and the absurd puffing of her into something that she clearly is not is from the other direction.

audiculous on December 10, 2010 at 1:05 AM


What?

Inanemergencydial on December 10, 2010 at 9:41 AM

shmendrick nailed it in one.

All I have to add, is that a lot of Progressives are narcissists (NPD used to called Inferiority Complex). At some deep level they know that they aren’t the superior beings they pretend to be, that their status and self-image are based on lies. That’s why they need praise, even if it’s insincere, and why they can’t handle criticism of themselves.

Sara is a threat to their whole ego because she refutes the lies they use to justify themselves.

LarryD on December 10, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Look at all these Liberals, so desperate to ride Sarah Palin’s coattails.

Every single one of these Leftwingers are the people who hid out under the bleachers and snickered about the Quarterback.

Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Leon Festinger was the psychologist who discovered and named this important concept. In his original research he observed religious groups who predicted that the end of the world would happen on a certain date. He would join them on the appointed end date of the world and when that didn’t happen he would observe how they explained that to themselves and each other and how it effected their belief in their now challanged religion. From such observations he developed his theory of cognitive dissonance.

shmendrick on December 10, 2010 at 12:16 AM

Easily describes the situation when the Left went trance-like about Obama and now look at their emotional state what with the ~changed~ conditions from those heady days of being drunk on their cult leader.

Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 11:51 AM

nice piece

cmsinaz on December 10, 2010 at 6:41 AM

Thank you Cmsinaz. I appreciate the kind words (and everyone else who comments as well).

Take care. :-)

X0X0, Suzi

Susannah Fleetwood on December 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Susannah Fleetwood on December 10, 2010 at 1:56 AM

Gee, love and kisses! What’s this blog coming to? I think I like it!

Thanks to all for the kind words.

shmendrick on December 10, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Susannah,

I didn’t realize at first you were the author of this article. When you responded to my comment I thought you were just another blogger like the rest of us. But then when I went to look to see who actually wrote this article I was surprised and pleased to see your name at the top.

This is the first time I have seen an article by you and I wish you well and congrats to you for being elevated to Green Room status. I look forward to many more articles and comments, especially with the smootchies.

shmendrick on December 10, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Thanks for the congrats Shmendrick. This my second column here. I wrote one other about Smitty leaving for Afghanistan a few weeks ago (see the link below), but then I got sidetracked with the whole holiday season.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/11/17/smitty-good-luck-and-godspeed/

I’ve been blogging at several other sites for a while now (some for a couple of years), but I am extremely happy to have joined The Green Room and to meet all of you fine people. I hope to chat with you all much more in the future.

Take care, and have a nice Christmas Season! :-)

X0X0, Suzi

Susannah Fleetwood on December 10, 2010 at 12:46 PM

. . ., but the obsession with Palin, and the writing about Palin, and the huge amounts of money thrown at Palin for her speeches and ghosted books, and the absurd puffing of her into something that she clearly is not is from the other direction.

audiculous on December 10, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Hey buddy, thanks for weighing in.

I guess when Barack Obama has been “puffed” into something he is clearly not, you have no problem, eh? I guess having speech writers in the West Wing and Marxists writing your autobiography and follow up is off limits for critical analysis from Leftists.

Now, tell me Bill Ayers didn’t finish Barack’s crappy attempt to comply with his book contract post-graduation. I’d love to debate that one. ANd if you can find the time, let’s discuss all of law student Obama’s articles for the Harvard Law Review.

LMAO at you Lefties.

BigAlSouth on December 11, 2010 at 8:23 AM

It’s not a disease, it’s an addiction.

ZK on December 11, 2010 at 8:30 AM

Well, BigAlSouth, I’ll be glad to tell you that Ayers didn’t write it.

And if you want to compare Obama’s law school writings with Palin’s, I’m happy to read your comparison.

Go right ahead, BigAl, blow your bubbles. Let’s see what you can make fly.

audiculous on December 11, 2010 at 11:12 AM

. . . (all meaningless drivel snipped)

audiculous on December 11, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Nice dodge, Whoopiculous

BigAlSouth on December 11, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Sorry, Biggy, but if you’re gonna demand a debate and then turn chicken instead of putting up something on the page, you best wipe the drivel off your own face ‘fore pointing elsewhere.

what legal opinions from Palin do you have to show?

audiculous on December 11, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Audiculous,

I’ve noticed that you’ve discussed everything under the sun from who writes Sarah Palin’s books and gives her money, to whether or not Sarah Palin has written any legal documents. You do realize that all of these comments are totally irrelevant to my post, right? Do us all a favor and just answer these questions. Is it OK for liberals to call Bristol Palin a “fat hooker”? Yes or no? Is it OK for Andrew Sullivan to spread internet rumors about Sarah Palin’s son, Trig? Yes or no? Is it OK for a grown man to call 16 year old Willow Palin “trashy” over a fight she had with another teen on Facebook? Yes or no? Is it OK for Kathy Griffin to call Bristol Palin “the white Precious”? Yes or no? Is it OK for Bill Maher to call Bristol Palin a “Hillbilly Heroine”? Yes or no? Is it OK for Aaron Sorkin to compare Sarah Palin to Michael Vick? Yes or no? Is any of this dignified behavior? Yes or no?

And please, no moral equivocating. Just answer the questions “yes” or “no”. For example, when David Shuster said that the Clintons were “pimping Chelsea out”, or Chris Matthews called Hillary Clinton a “witch”, I spoke out quite strongly against that bile. Either you agree with hatefulness, or you do not. It’s just that simple.

We’re all awaiting your answers.

Take care. :-)

Susannah

Susannah Fleetwood on December 11, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Mama Grizzly chases off da Troll and does it with a happy face too! Nice going Susannah!

shmendrick on December 11, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Dear Susannah, if you look back at some previous posts on this site, you’ll have your answers.
I don’t condone insulting Palin’s children, or anybody’s children, as a means of scorning the parent and I see little point in spending much time even paying attention to them.

But, as I said from the beginning, your post is incorrect. Liberals aren’t the ones obsessed with Palin. You’re confused and confusing comedians with more serious folk.

The far right pushes Palin, “Palin inc.” pushes Palin, and the Republican Party pays serious attention pushing back at Palin.

The left thinks Palin is about average bright, and deeply uninformed, and if Palin disappeared tomorrow the left wouldn’t much care.

You and yours might miss having her around. Most people would quickly switch over to see what Paris Hilton or Mel Gibson was doing that week.

audiculous on December 11, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Audiculous,

First of all, you don’t have to address me as “dear”–this is a blog, and therefore, responses are usually informal. (“Susannah” will do just fine.)

Second of all, are Charles Blow, Aaron Sorkin, Sally Quinn and Andrew Sullivan comedians? Well, some conservatives might consider them to be, but they certainly don’t sell themselves as such (and the Left thinks that they are serious thinkers).

Third of all, neither I nor anybody on this thread is “pushing Sarah Palin”–we are just defending her from unscrupulous attacks. (I even did the same for Hillary Clinton, and for Christine O’Donnell.) Please don’t put words in my mouth. If you must know, I don’t even have a candidate yet for 2012.

Fourth of all, even Jon Stewart thinks that the MSM and the Left (same thing) have an unhealthy obsession with the Palins. Is he wrong?

And finally, if the Left is so indifferent to Sarah Palin, then why are you still here? You have been trolling this thread for two days now. You must care somewhat about the Palins and seem to want the world to know how “average” and “uniformed” you think Sarah Palin is. Just sayin’

Take care. :-)

Susannah

Susannah Fleetwood on December 11, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Awesome article Susannah!

Sarah strikes fear into the cold, dark hearts of those who would prefer to slay their offspring than raise them and those who prefer a Government mommy rather than take responsibility for themselves and their families!

A prominent talk show host frequently says,
“Liberalism is a disease”!
Your excellent article provides ample evidence as does “audiculous” and others stalking!

dhunter on December 11, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Speaking of ole Charles Blow:

Charles Blow: PDS Denier

http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=3668

Have at it Whoopiculous

BigAlSouth on December 11, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Susannah, me and the Left are two very different things.

I don’t care about “the Palins” as I very clearly said. One Palin is a subject of political discourse, the rest should get to grow up in private.

And my dear, take care of yourself as well.

audiculous on December 11, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Thank you Dhunter and Shmendrick. I appreciate the kind words.

Oh, BigAlSouth, I liked your post about Charles Blow–it was extremely funny.

Take care guys. :-)

X0X0, Suzi

Susannah Fleetwood on December 11, 2010 at 7:57 PM

Yo Whoopiculous: American Thinker thinks Obama had a ghostwriter:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html

And “no, he didn’t” is such an amazing debate response. I can’t match that. You win.

LMAO.

BigAlSouth on December 11, 2010 at 8:18 PM

BigAl, i don’t like to assume that the people I’m talking with are stupid, but at least do something to help me.

How does a guess from Cashill about a ghostwriter provide refutation to my denial that it was specifically Bill Ayers?

And what does that have to do with your offer to “discuss all of law student Obama’s articles for the Harvard Law Review.”

Where’s your end of the discussion?

You may be laughing, but your A ain’t off, it’s still firmly in control of your head and fingers.

audiculous on December 11, 2010 at 8:38 PM

Hey audiculous, ie troll,

Let’s hear who you think should be president and why. Or is that sort of question above your pay grade from Mr. Sore O’s?

shmendrick on December 12, 2010 at 3:59 AM

Dear Susannah, if you look back at some previous posts on this site, you’ll have your answers.

audiculous on December 11, 2010 at 6:10 PM

That is an unacceptable response. It is just another way of dodging the issue, in effect saying you can’t answer Susannah’s question or you are too self absorbed to offer even a glimmer of your opinion. It also suggests that you have no positive motivation to repond but simply to be an anoyance, to use this forum as a way of criticising Palin and while at the same time obfuscating your real preferences and motives. ie a troll.

shmendrick on December 12, 2010 at 4:09 AM

shmendrick

unacceptable? read more carefully, pal. my answer was that I had already answered and my pointing to earlier posts was meant to show that my answer that I did not agree with smearing Palin’s children was already freely offered and not being pulled from me merely in response to Ms Fleetwood’s inquiry.

Why you can call it unacceptable is hard to fathom when the next sentence in my comment is a clear iteration of my position and directly responsive.

There’s a term or two hat mental health practitioner’s use to describe people who read and can’t absorb what they’re reading.

audiculous on December 12, 2010 at 11:36 AM

To quote Susannah:

Either you agree with hatefulness, or you do not. It’s just that simple.

We’re all awaiting your answers.

You dodged the answer troll. Typical. You said you don’t agree with attacks on candidates children. Fine, good. But that wasn’t the main point of the question.

I understood your response, or rather the lack of one. And another thing, who do you think you are that other people on this blog or any other for that matter should have to go back searching for your deluded positions on anything. Especially when you can’t even answer a simple question in the present.

And as far as mental health practitioners go I would bet that the only familiarity you have with them is as a client. But that is probably giving you too much credit.

shmendrick on December 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM

schlemiel,

there was no dodging of any questions from Fleetwood. Attacks on the Palin kids was the sum and total of the questions.

if you can’t read and understand, you’re not well-situted to call others trolls.

go gum some jello.

audiculous on December 12, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Well it’s very apparent that you’re the one who can’t understand what you read. Fleetwood’s article and her question to you wasn’t about the Palin kids, it was about how Sarah causes liberals and RINO’s like you to act weird and go to crazy lengths to find fault with her.

It’s also very apparent to any reader by now what you are. If you act like a troll, won’t(can’t) deviate from your task (divert a blog to negative attacks on Palin), won’t respond to direct questions (like mine as to who you do support?), and generally resort to personal attacks (I love to respond to these in kind so keep it up) you reveal yourself to be a purveyor of those tired Alinsky tactics for which myself and most people on HA have no patience for.

You also reveal yourself as an self centered condescending elitist, another symptom of the usual species of troll.

It also means your credibility here is near zero, another name for our el presidente.

My suspicion, however, is that you’re a Romney sponsored troll. You know, that failed former RINO governor of MA, originator of Romneycare (Obamacare), who retired on the job, made sweet deals with the lawyers lobby, but no help to rebuilt the MA GOP.

shmendrick on December 12, 2010 at 4:52 PM