Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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.
Oh, I don’t know Newsweak, maybe once you tell us how we can solve a problem like BarryOHopenchange, we can work on that one together?
It’s a good thing she’s useless, stupid, worthless, irrelevant, and bad for all of us. I’d hate to see what the media would look like if they actually thought she had a chance of rallying the GOP.
(Needless to say, /SARC)
JamesLee on November 14, 2009 at 12:46 PM
The media is trying ohhhhsooo hard to scare her away from something….
epic fail media.
Newsweek: folding in more ways than one these days.
ted c on November 14, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Someone should tell Newsweek that Maria was the heroine that foiled the Nazis. Unless they are trying to say she’s a heroine, then nevermind.
I’m going to request that they send me the cover but keep the rest of the rag.
VegasRick on November 14, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Yeah, we’re totally gonna believe the folks who slobberknobbed a witless hack like 0bama when they say Sarah Palin is bad for the GOP and the country /s
I’d rather wait for Post-Totus Socialism Destruction.
cs89 on November 14, 2009 at 12:56 PM
If Reagan was in a time capsule and was present today, this would be Newsweek’s cover: http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/reagan6-768781.gif
Some of us are old enough to recall Palin is being treated no more harshly than he was. The country would not have it, and the media became even more rabid.
Marcus on November 14, 2009 at 12:56 PM
I’m surprised Runner’s World let them use their photo.
yogi41 on November 14, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Sarah had a bad day yesterday, with the Althouse blogpost calling her stupid and the AP “fact checking’ her book. I also thought her Facebook post did not strike quite the right tone. Newsweek to the rescue! What the left doesn’t realize is that Sarah gets a lot of support from people who think, “If they hate her this much she must have something going for her.”
Ted Torgerson on November 14, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Hmmmmm
I wish there could be a nation wide poll or statistical survey that would ask people if Sarah Palin is being targeted by the media.
Frum was too busy going blind with a copy of Runners World in the bathroom.
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:01 PM
All Palin all the time. I can not wait for the oprah interview and the Rush interview and the hannity interview. Her self imposed exile over the last 10 months as been hard on her supporters. Sure we had the occasional facebook page that redirects the national dialogue or slams the knownothing dems. Or the policy op-eds on energy to enjoy, but it just doesn’t fill the void. Palin unlike Mr., I bow to everyone, Obama is someone I actually want to hear speak.
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Has anybody ever seen interviews with Jon Meacham of Newsweek? If I had to describe him, the words “faux intellectual”, “dim witted”, and “mind numbingly boring” come to mind.
jdflorida on November 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Frum was too busy going blind with a copy of Runners World in the bathroom.
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Why? was a shirtless Obama on the cover?
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Heh. It could have been Frum. It says, ‘How she’s bad news for the GOP’. I know Newsweek is horribly concerned about the future of the GOP.
Lately, Newsweek is selling only about 66,000 newsstand copies a week. That’s all.
Emperor Norton on November 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM
If it could be measured as to which person Newsweek hated the most, you can bet the metrics would be based upon the individual who had the maximum adverse impact on their core agenda and beliefs.
Reagan has been gone for years. Bush is largely silent these days, Dick and Liz Cheney are fighting the good fight, but are not doing a lot of public pronouncements, and nearly most of the GOP don’t get a lot of play beyond the New Media.
Enter Sarah Palin. She is the TRUE One that the Left fears the most. Even back in the day when Barack Obama was still just a senator, no one on the right ever became outhouse rat insane wild over the prospects of his potential POTUS candidacy the way the Left does over Palin.
She is the only conservative (currently) with a built-in mass base that could win the GOP primaries and gather enough of a consensus of independents and right leaning Democrats to unseat the current POTUS and undo some of the damage brought about by the current Congress.
The opposition can’t handle that. Thus, the need to go into Terminator Mode and take her out before her star gets any brighter. If Palin can keep her head about her, avoid the serious gaffes (a la Newt’s weird behavior), and not be overexposed, she has a legitimate chance to be the 45th POTUS.
But be warned: PDS is alive and well, and it will get ugly before it is over with.
Frum was too busy going blind with a copy of Runners World in the bathroom.
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Why? was a shirtless Obama on the cover?
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:04 PM
EWWW, even funnier!
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM
All they care about is that these words (sorry, can’t repeat them verbatim): “she’s bad for the GOP–and the rest of us” (emphasis mine) stick in the minds of people standing in the checkout lines at Albertson’s and Safeway. They don’t care if they sell any copies–just so long as they can damage her future prospects with that little caveat about how she’s bad for the rest of us.
theotherone on November 14, 2009 at 1:06 PM
With that picture on the cover I don’t think anyone will notice the words.
Sarah had a bad day yesterday, with the Althouse blogpost calling her stupid and the AP “fact checking’ her book. I also thought her Facebook post did not strike quite the right tone. Newsweek to the rescue! What the left doesn’t realize is that Sarah gets a lot of support from people who think, “If they hate her this much she must have something going for her.”
Ted Torgerson on November 14, 2009 at 12:58 PM
LOL…bad day? Althouse blogpost? you mean the one that didn’t know what it was talking about?
And the fact checking? You mean the fact checking where AP agrees 100% with palin that she usally doesn’t go to expensive hotel rooms?
And the facebook post on the KSM outragous decsion of Obama?
Yeah bad day…..k
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Lately, Newsweek is selling only about 66,000 newsstand copies a week. That’s all.
Emperor Norton on November 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM
I think Palin sells more books than that.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Why? was a shirtless Obama on the cover?
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Damn you. I had almost banished the moobs vacation glamor shot from my memory.
ElectricPhase on November 14, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Lately, Newsweek is selling only about 66,000 newsstand copies a week. That’s all.
Emperor Norton on November 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Palin gets 15 Times that each day. Palin is emerging as one who is really starting to have control over the message. I would predict that after the book release there will be no stopping her.
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:08 PM
“Sarah had a bad day yesterday”
You are going to see a “full court press” from the left wing media like Newsweek. It will be fairly well coordinated, too. Not coordinated necessarily by any organization, but more coordinated in cocktail parties and various other social networking by the leftest “journalist” crowd.
They will walk themselves so far out into left field that they are going to “lose” the majority of their audience and they won’t even realize it because they surround themselves with people who think the same way. They think they are “average” or “moderate” because they seem to share opinions with others around them. Problem is that they and the others around them are so disconnected from mainstream America that they don’t even realize they are out of step.
Do the Commies at Newsweek think that’s a bad picture or something?
The [most fashionable evah!] First Lady wishes she looked that good in throwaway sportswear.
mudskipper on November 14, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Somebody’s got a feeeeva…
d1carter on November 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Hey, not everyone can be good for everyone and everything like Obama.
Kataklysmic on November 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I don’t get the point of using that photo. We have a constant barrage of Obambi basketball photo ops. What is wrong with Sarah running?
ctmom on November 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I haven’t read the article, but this is so egregious that I am trying to imagine how the headline might be being used to increase sales while the article itself is in a different context that is suggested.
“Electronic populism threatens to short-circuit the representative democracy.”
Deeply sickening people in the media.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 1:14 PM
AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report.
Wow. That’s ten “AP writers” plus Calvin Woodward, the AP writer whose twinkling pen honed the above contributions into the turgid sludge of the actual report. That’s 11 writers for a 695-word report. What on? Obamacare? The Iranian nuke program? The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
No, the Associated Press assigned 11 writers to “fact-check” Sarah Palin’s new book, and in return the 11 fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. That’s 1.8333333 writers for each error. What earth-shattering misstatements did they uncover for this impressive investment? Stand well back:
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:15 PM
EDITOR JON MEACHAM, “Why Palin matters to Obama – and to you”: “What Obama advisers privately refer to as ‘Palinism’ has created a climate of ideological purity inside the GOP. To deviate from the anti-Obama line at all — that is, to acknowledge that politics is the art of compromise — risks the censure of the party. http://www.politico.com/playbook/
Kind of sounds like a certain HA blogger….
cs89 on November 14, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Newsweek isn’t even part of the MSM anymore. Actually, it’s not much at all…print is dead.
Nice death-rattle, though.
Asher on November 14, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Shooting blanks
SouthernGent on November 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Precisely, The Wash Post tried to control the message in Va Gov race. Epic Fail. Times are changing, and the Tide is Turning.
If you wonder why American newspapering is dying, consider this sign-off:
AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report.
Wow. That’s ten “AP writers” plus Calvin Woodward, the AP writer whose twinkling pen honed the above contributions into the turgid sludge of the actual report. That’s 11 writers for a 695-word report. What on? Obamacare? The Iranian nuke program? The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
No, the Associated Press assigned 11 writers to “fact-check” Sarah Palin’s new book, and in return the 11 fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. That’s 1.8333333 writers for each error. What earth-shattering misstatements did they uncover for this impressive investment? Stand well back:
PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking “only” for reasonably priced rooms and not “often” going for the “high-end, robe-and-slippers” hotels.
THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard)…
That looks like AP paid 1.8333333 fact-checkers to agree with Mrs Palin: She says she didn’t “often” go for “high-end” hotels; they say she “usually opted for less-pricey hotels”. That’s gonna make one must-see edition of “Point/Counterpoint”.
Or is AP arguing “four nights” counts as “often”? Is that the point? AP assigned 11 reporters to demonstrate that four is a large number?
Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker and his vast team of researchers (17 Minneapolis-area Somali jihadists, 29 Acorn-accredited child-sex slaves, and 43 unemployed Columbia School of Journalism graduates) fact-check AP’s fact-checkers.
Coming next:
PALIN: How many AP fact-checkers does it take to change a lightbulb?
FACT: Palin has gone seriously “rogue” in her facts here. AP fact-checkers are prevented per union regulations from changing lightbulbs.
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Don’t you just love how worried they are about what’s good for the GOP?
UnderstandingisPower on November 14, 2009 at 1:16 PM
How do you get rid of a rag like Newsweek? It’s bad for the Left and for people in line at supermarkets everywhere.
I wish there could be a nation wide poll or statistical survey that would ask people if Sarah Palin is being targeted by the media.
upinak on November 14, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Good idea in theory, but the poll would be highly skewed against her if conducted by the ususal suspects. And if it were accurate, those same entities would immediately discount it. And unforutnately we know a majority of Americans can be fooled by that. Exhibit A is who we have in office.
Not a very new pic of Palin for the cover…and again, that’s no way to treat the American flag; looks like it was simply tossed on the back of that chair.
looks like it was simply tossed on the back of that chair.
Draped.
And even you don’t believe she stores American flags on the back of chairs. Clearly it was put in a photo-shoot to show her association with America First.
Palinistas have an excuse for everything…It certainly wasn’t “draped” with care…
And even you don’t believe she stores American flags on the back of chairs. Clearly it was put in a photo-shoot to show her association with America First.
Spirit of 1776 on November 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Yes…I realize it’s for a photo shoot. How Palin stores her flags, I’m sure I don’t know. But if that were me in Palin’s position, I would not have my pic taken with the American flag “draped” sloppily like that.
It may seem inconsequential, but respect for out flag IS important.
Didn’t newsweek place explosive charges in a pickup truck to show how easily they explode if the truck has a collision from the side?
Oh that might have been the other credible news source.
daesleeper on November 14, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Palinistas have an excuse for everything…It certainly wasn’t “draped” with care…
And even you don’t believe she stores American flags on the back of chairs. Clearly it was put in a photo-shoot to show her association with America First.
Spirit of 1776 on November 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Yes…I realize it’s for a photo shoot. How Palin stores her flags, I’m sure I don’t know. But if that were me in Palin’s position, I would not have my pic taken with the American flag “draped” sloppily like that.
It may seem inconsequential, but respect for out flag IS important.
JetBoy on November 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM
You better worry about Cris flip flopping and leg-humping obama.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Yes…I realize it’s for a photo shoot. How Palin stores her flags, I’m sure I don’t know. But if that were me in Palin’s position, I would not have my pic taken with the American flag “draped” sloppily like that.
It may seem inconsequential, but respect for out flag IS important.
JetBoy on November 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Well at least she wasn’t standing on it like William ayers.
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:29 PM
What’s that saying? You need to worry only when they’re
not
talking about you.
For someone who Dems have us believe has about much relevance as Howard Dean, she surely gets a lot more attention than anyone other than Obama.
In fact, for as much scrutiny as she receives from the media, you’d think that she was elected vice president.
BuckeyeSam on November 14, 2009 at 1:29 PM
JetBoy on November 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Did you just call me a Palinista?
But if that were me in Palin’s position, I would not have my pic taken with the American flag “draped” sloppily like that.
I don’t disagree. However it does not connotate a disrespect. A poor judgment, perhaps. But there is no evidence of disrespect or for a pattern of such thought from her.
How to solve a problem like Sarah? Just keep doing what you’re doing. Keep lying. Misquote as often as possible. Make up quotes where there is nothing to misquote. Quote out of context. Deify her opponents. Levi Johnston. Photoshop. Say she’s stupid. Say it again. And again. Levi Johnston.
couldn’t open the pdf for some reason. What was it?
Itchee Dryback on November 14, 2009 at 1:32 PM
The cover of Newsweek with this picture on it and the caption “How do you solve a problem like Sarah, she’s bad news for the GOP and everyone else too”.
clearbluesky on November 14, 2009 at 1:34 PM
clearbluesky on November 14, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Thanks!
Me likee…me likee alot.
Itchee Dryback on November 14, 2009 at 1:38 PM
But if that were me in Palin’s position, I would not have my pic taken with the American flag “draped” sloppily like that.
It may seem inconsequential, but respect for out flag IS important.
Maybe, but if I were in Crist’s position I don’t think I’d be supporting the Stimulus to the point Obama made an… interesting… comment about Crist’s support for the program.
(Yes it’s Huffpo, didn’t quickly find another link for the Fox clip)
cs89 on November 14, 2009 at 1:39 PM
couldn’t open the pdf for some reason. What was it?
Itchee Dryback on November 14, 2009 at 1:32 PM
David Axelrod called John Meacham and threatened the latter with bodily harm one more time.
Newsweak had the pic of Sarah in her running shorts with the American flag in her living room. The headline was “How do you solve a problem like Sarah?” The underline was: “Why Palin is bad for the GOP-and everyone Else”.
It’s as if an entire newsweekly turned themselves into a bunch of concern trolls.
Jesus. How pathetic. I can’t wait until Newsweak dies.
Maybe, but if I were in Crist’s position I don’t think I’d be supporting the Stimulus to the point Obama made an… interesting… comment about Crist’s support for the program.
(Yes it’s Huffpo, didn’t quickly find another link for the Fox clip)
cs89 on November 14, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Crist was grabbing Obamas hose there, with both hands.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Holy crap. Is this supposed to be objective journalism? F’n douchebags, and I’m not even a Palinista. Of course, journalism officially died last fall as the media joined forces to take her down, then kept on digging with the attacks on the former Miss California for not answering a question the way they wanted and sharing the same view Obama does on an issue.
These people have no shame, so sense of decency or integrity. Why even bother claiming these tools are nothing but an arm of the DNC and the Left?
Well, this is more of a war on “Palinism” than Palin but we get the point. Liberal elite opinion is more worried about those people she stands for then for Palin herself. They think if they can defeat Palin that those forces will go away.
They’re wrong.
I’m not a fan of Palin – I think she’s in way over her head – but I’m sympathetic to Palinism or the forces she represents. We have a largely corrupt Washington that is sleepwalking through history.
Somebody needs to wake them up.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM
We’re becoming enslaved by the banks and the federal government, and these people are trying to act like Palin who has little power right now is the “problem”…
Jesus. How pathetic. I can’t wait until Newsweak dies.
victor82 on November 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Thanks! I agree.
The only rational explanation is desperation. Palin was in over her head?? These self deluded ideologues opened up a self exploding can of crap when they thought the entire country was as gullible and easily lead around by the nose as the average liberal progressive and juvenile leftie. They don’t know how to deal with truth. Its a foreign concept to them.
Can’t wait for them to really start to make lame excuses, and plastic faces with worried eyes..like a con man caught red handed in the con.
Itchee Dryback on November 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I’m sure Sarah thanks Newsweek for the boost in her book sales…
Wyznowski on November 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I HAVE GOT TO READ THIS BOOK!
HUFFPOST banner – “PALIN TAKES AIM: Rips McCain Campaign, Steve Schmidt In ‘Going Rogue’… Gives Thanks To ‘Fair And Balanced Media Folks’” – by Sam Stein and Lila Shapiro: “Clocking in at over 400 pages, ‘Going Rogue’ is, at its heart, one giant complaint with the conduct of John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. At the nexus of Palin’s grievances lies [Steve] Schmidt, a character cast as out of touch, overly cautious, and vindictive. … Peppered throughout are a stream of insulting descriptions of Schmidt and others of the ‘professional political caste.’ … At one point during the campaign, Schmidt discussed his hopes of getting a nutritionist on the bus. Palin, first assuming that it’s for the entire staff, compliments the idea. Only then, does Schmidt tell her, ‘No, it’s for you… You gotta get off that Atkins Diet.’ Palin, writing up the incident months later, couldn’t help but comment on Schmidt’s ‘rotund physique.’ … ‘I’m not on the Atkins Diet, Steve.’ … ‘Don’t you know what a high-protein diet does?’ he asked, ignoring what I had just said. … I interrupted his lecture. ‘Steve, you know what I really need? Half an hour to go for a run in these beautiful cities we’re visiting. Also, seeing my kids does wonders for my soul.’ He barreled on as if I hadn’t spoken. ‘Headquarters is flying in a nutritionist, and for three days you’re going to be on a diet balanced in carbohydrates and nitrates and –’ … I had a humbling experience while we were back in Wasilla for the Charlie Gibson interview in September. … While the crews turned my kitchen into a television studio, I took Nicolle into my bedroom and showed her what I thought I should pack for the trail. She flipped through my wardrobe with a raised eyebrow. ‘No… no… no…,’ she said as she slid each garment aside on its hanger.’”
If half of this stuff is true….McCain’s people were utter morons
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 2:07 PM
If half of this stuff is true….McCain’s people were utter morons
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 2:07 PM
You dont say.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Left out of the tagline: “Why Sarah Palin is … bad good for magazine sales.”
It is true alright, and now perhaps you can see why the beltway insiders of the GOP are attacking her today. You see, she is honest, and they are scared to DEATH of honesty.
She is also one of us, and they are scared that they will lose more control over their preferred puppets because of her.
Boy, you guys go crazy when someone criticizes your messiah, huh.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Lately, Newsweek is selling only about 66,000 newsstand copies a week. That’s all.
Emperor Norton on November 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Wow.
And with a slogan of “why Sarah Palin is bad for the GOP… and everyone else” this ain’t gonna do it either.
There’s nothing left guys… it’s time for them to move straight to the alien heads sticking out of bodies and telephoto shots of celebs doing freaky stuff: “do ya want a paycheck or not? … well do ya?”
Boy, you guys go crazy when someone criticizes your messiah, huh.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Are you still on the messiah kick?
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM
I don’t get the point of using that photo. We have a constant barrage of Obambi basketball photo ops. What is wrong with Sarah running?
Nothing – the photo is ravishingly positive and will help to sell magazines even to pro-Palin or anyway non-anti-Palin people who would be put off by the anti-Palin slant. It adds up to “balance” in the mind of an editor. We boost Palin and exploit her, but quieten our overwhelming liberal readership (and staff) but unloading on her like she’s a combination of ebola and influenza.
Have you read the article, or are you basing that on the picture?
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Never mind, I know the answer.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Liberal elite opinion is more worried about those people she stands for then for Palin herself. They think if they can defeat Palin that those forces will go away
You’re correct. They don’t necessarily fear Palin, they fear us. They know that she is the image of us, and it infuriates them.
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 2:27 PM
she’s bad for the GOP–and the rest of us”
Well at least Newsweek finally admitted that they are just a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.
that’s no way to treat the American flag; looks like it was simply tossed on the back of that chair.
JetBoy on November 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Why are you whining – Obama doesn’t bother to show respect for the flag when it’s actually displayed appropriately.
katiejane on November 14, 2009 at 2:27 PM
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Dang! Heck of a thing, the McCain campaign. Can’t believe they lost to a nimrod like Axelrod…
I don’t think you do. You’re missing it by a thousand miles.
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 2:28 PM
I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Palin for the placement of the flag – it looks like a photo shoot. Furthermore, given that one of her kids is serving overseas, I’m not really worried about her proving her patriotism. I mean, I think everyone should be more respectful of the flag, but whatever. I’m less concerned with symbolism and more concerned with actions.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:31 PM
I don’t think you do. You’re missing it by a thousand miles.
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 2:28 PM
No, I know the answer. Someone said that this attack on Palin was “egregious.” Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but you can’t really say that without reading the article. We don’t know why Newsweek thinks she’s bad. Maybe they’ve got a new take on it. Or maybe it’s a bunch of vicious nonsense. We’ll see on Monday, I guess.
The guy who said that was basing his criticism of the attack being “egregious” on the picture. He was judging the content of the article based on the cover of the magazine.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:34 PM
The guy who said that was basing his criticism of the attack being “egregious” on the picture. He was judging the content of the article based on the cover of the magazine.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:34 PM
The cover says “Why Sarah Palin is bad for the GOP – and bad for America too.” How could the article itself be anything other than an egregious attack?
Ted Torgerson on November 14, 2009 at 2:35 PM
The cover says “Why Sarah Palin is bad for the GOP – and bad for America too.” How could the article itself be anything other than an egregious attack?
Ted Torgerson on November 14, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Because it might be a very well-reasoned attack. I don’t know. I haven’t read it. Neither has anyone else.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Frum was too busy going blind with a copy of Runners World in the bathroom.
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:01 PM
He had to switch because the pages of his Playgirl were all stuck together.
SKYFOX on November 14, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Newseek , the mouse that roared.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Ted Torgerson on November 14, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Because it might be a very well-reasoned attack. I don’t know. I haven’t read it. Neither has anyone else.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:37 PM
You are right, it could be. Do you play poker? I’d love to play poker with you…
alexwest on November 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM
A news magazine does a cover piece saying that Palin is “bad for America” and that’s not an attack on her?
It may be a fair attack or an unfair attack.
But’s it an attack.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Because it might be a very well-reasoned attack. I don’t know. I haven’t read it. Neither has anyone else.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Yep, and Frosty the Snowman may be the junior Senator from Hawaii. It’s been 15 months of crying wolf by these people. No one is listening anymore.
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM
More accurate subtitle:
SHE’S BAD NEWS FOR THE DNC,
AND FOR EVERYBODY ELSE WE LOVE, TOO.
drunyan8315 on November 14, 2009 at 2:41 PM
The guy who said that was basing his criticism of the attack being “egregious” on the picture. He was judging the content of the article based on the cover of the magazine.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Actually, portions of the article have been released…. go over to Politico or Newsbusters and see for yourself. Bottom line: you assumed that he was basing his criticism on the picture, but you don’t know that to be a fact. Of course, that didn’t stop you from stating it as a fact:
Because it might be a very well-reasoned attack. I don’t know. I haven’t read it. Neither has anyone else.
“Bad for America” – actually it says “bad for the GOP and bad the rest of us” – tending to imply that Newsweek and its readers are NOT the GOP, even though you’d think on the face of it, if she were bad for the GOP, that would be good for “the rest of us.” Apparently, the lady pictured has managed the amazing feat of not being just bad, and not just doubly bad, but bad in such a way that she can be bad for the enemy and for the friend.
A news magazine does a cover piece saying that Palin is “bad for America” and that’s not an attack on her?
It may be a fair attack or an unfair attack.
But’s it an attack.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Yes, I believe I said that it was an attack. That’s fine – Newsweek is pretty left wing and they’re entitled to criticize whoever they want. I’m sure National Review thinks Obama is bad for America. There’s nothing wrong with either of those things.
I’d be annoyed if it was an unfair attack, or an attack based on falsehoods or bad reasoning. But I haven’t read the article, and neither have any of you.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Actually, portions of the article have been released…. go over to Politico or Newsbusters and see for yourself. Bottom line: you assumed that he was basing his criticism on the picture, but you don’t know that to be a fact.
BPD on November 14, 2009 at 2:41 PM
He was basing his criticism on the picture. The link was only to the picture, and he said the attack was “egregious” without citing to any particular passage in the article.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:47 PM
So, does Newsweek really care what happens to the GOP?
So Sarah is a “problem” that “needs to be solved”?
Kind of like the “Jewish Problem” with the “Final Solution”?
Norwegian on November 14, 2009 at 2:52 PM
As I understand it, Meacham’s main argument in the piece is that Palin is too polarizing of a figure and that she and her supporters too ideological.
From a summary of the article: It is difficult to imagine the 2012 nominee [i.e., Palin] choosing a more moderate running mate, not least because there are so few moderates left in the GOP. Even those of centrist inclinations are finding it virtually impossible to work with the administration for fear of a backlash from the base. We have been to this movie before, when the unreconstructed liberals of the fading New Deal-Great Society coalition obstinately refused to acknowledge the reality that America is a center-right nation, and that Democrats who wish to win national elections cannot run on the left.
This is the old “vital center” argument that without compromise and comity (because of the polarized parties) the government is deadlocked and incapable of “solving” our problems.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 2:52 PM
This is beyond the pale by Newsweak.
So Sarah is a “problem” that “needs to be solved”?
Kind of like the “Jewish Problem” with the “Final Solution”?
Norwegian on November 14, 2009 at 2:52 PM
This is the dumbest thing ever written on the Internet.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:54 PM
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Well, again, I haven’t read the article but that doesn’t really seem like that egregious of an attack. Kind of predictable. Not that great of an analysis, honestly. But not egregious.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:56 PM
This is the dumbest thing ever written on the Internet.
I guess you missed that Frank Rich published on the net where he stated that Palin was “re-enacting Stalin’s purges”.
Which is worse? I’ll take the published piece in a major newspaper over an anonymous poster on a blog.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 2:57 PM
This is the dumbest thing ever written on the Internet.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Thanks! Coming from you, that means a lot.
Norwegian on November 14, 2009 at 2:58 PM
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Lighten up, Steve. It was a joke.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:58 PM
I’m less concerned with symbolism and more concerned with actions.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:31 PM
So you don’t much care for the health-care push, environmental idiocy like C&T, dumbing down the educational criteria in favor of ‘diversity’, and nudging people into pathetic little poofter cars? If you feel like its time for the people who make up victim groups to start paying their way…. You just might be a conservative.
Itchee Dryback on November 14, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Thanks! Coming from you, that means a lot.
Norwegian on November 14, 2009 at 2:58 PM
You just compared a Newsweek cover critical of Sarah Palin to the Holocaust.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Lighten up, Steve. It was a joke.
Yeah, but you gotta’ admit Rich’s was dumber.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Newsweek? I think I may have seen one of those in the dentist office once.
No, wait, that was Highlights.
Joe Caps on November 14, 2009 at 1:24 PM
LOL! I loved Gallant and Goofus.
yogi41 on November 14, 2009 at 3:01 PM
As I understand it, Meacham’s main argument in the piece is that Palin is too polarizing of a figure and that she and her supporters too ideological.
If she’s polarizing, they’re the polarizers. Had she been treated with an ounce of respect and decorum after the election, she would be in Juneau minding her own business and running the State of Alaska effectively like she had before the election. The Democratic Party and the media targeted her as an example. What they didn’t bet on was that she wouldn’t play a rigged game by their rigged rules and with their payed off referees. They started playing hard ball on the softball field. Now their upset that she decided to play rugby instead, and she’s kicking their carcasses all over the field.
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 3:01 PM
their
they’re
Forgive my crappy grammar.
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 3:02 PM
GOOD GOD, HOW STUPID OF ME!!!!
I forgot!
NEWSWEAK IS TO THE MAGAZINE INDUSTRY AS ALLAHPUNDIT IS TO THE ONLINE BLOGGING INDUSTRY!
THE ONLY REASON WHY JOHN MEACHAM HAS PALIN HEADLINING HIS FILTHY LITTLE MAGAZINE WITH PALIN SHOWING HER LEGS IS TO GET HIT COUNT AND TO HAVE PEOPLE PICK UP THE MAGAZINE. HE HAS ONLY A CIRCULATION OF 66,000 SALES!!!
Boy, you guys go crazy when someone criticizes your messiah, huh.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Most of us here are basically laughing at this and shaking our heads at Newsweek and you talk as if we’re climbing the walls and screaming with rage. Whatever, you Obama supporter you.
Aitch748 on November 14, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Yeah, but you gotta’ admit Rich’s was dumber.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Didn’t read the article, don’t know the context. Most of things Frank Rich says are stupid, though. A good rule of thumb is, if it’s on the NYT editorial page, it’s stupid.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:04 PM
The Republican party nominated a non-polarizing, more centrist candidate in John McCain and who did Newsweek and Meacham support? Support, heck, swoon over?
The most liberal Senator in the US Senate.
Pardon me if I’m suspicious about Newsweek’s concerns for more centrist presidential candidates.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 3:11 PM
“bad for the GOP and bad the rest of us” –
Who’s “us”? Does Newsweek really believe it identifies with “us”?
yogi41 on November 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Just out of curiosity, how is your assumption about the editorial page of the NYT, sight unseen, different then assumptions about Newsweek articles, sight unseen?
Yawn. Get with the program, RINO. A Newsweek contributor has already suggested a “Final Soluition”.
Norwegian on November 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Newsbusters cites that Meacham blames Palin for Lindsey Graham’s censure:
In it, he included these comments from Newsweek editor John Meacham who blamed Palin for Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., struggles with his conservative base in South Carolina. One of those struggles for Graham was his acknowledgment that climate change is a manmade phenomenon in need of a so-called “compromise,” And that backlash is somehow former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s fault:
“What Obama advisers privately refer to as ‘Palinism’ has created a climate of ideological purity inside the GOP. To deviate from the anti-Obama line at all — that is, to acknowledge that politics is the art of compromise — risks the censure of the party. Pure ideologues will argue that this is a good thing; others like, say, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close friend of Palin’s onetime champion John McCain, think differently. Graham was denounced last week by the Charleston County Republican Party for working with Democrats on issues such as climate change; the senator’s office replied by invoking President Reagan’s belief that ‘elected officials need to find common ground and work together to solve difficult problems.’”
yogi41 on November 14, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Just out of curiosity, how is your assumption about the editorial page of the NYT, sight unseen, different then assumptions about Newsweek articles, sight unseen?
Spirit of 1776 on November 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM
I said “rule of thumb.” There are some decent editorials in the NYT, but most are bad. But that doesn’t entitle anyone to say, “A *specific* editorial is bad,” because I haven’t read it. Do you understand the distinction?
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I find this to be completey amazing! I just don’t know what to say… The SRM has just lost its mind re Palin… I’ve really never seen anything like it… But, as I postd yesterday…if she runs I’ll volunteer for her and if she says support x candadate… I will…
Funny how they can only find fantastic pictures of her to use huh! That to me might be a miscalculation on their part because the yourger more superficial crowd will like that…
CCRWM on November 14, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Do you understand the distinction?
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Certainly.
As a rule of thumb, NYT editorials are dumb. Also, as a rule of news magazine stories on Palin are dumb and rely on false information. And on occasion, the cable (news) networks abuse the truth as well, as we saw last week with PS’d Palin pictures on MSNBC.
Yes, exactly. I can say, “Keith Olbermann is a useless fraud,” and be 100% accurate. But it would not be fair to say, “Olbermann next week is going to suck and be worthless in terms of delivering actual ‘news’ to people,” because I haven’t watched any of that yet.
I’m sure there will be plenty to criticize in the Palin article. Wait til you’ve read it before you do that, though.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM
FWIW not everyone interpreted that comment in the facile and credulous way you did.
RD on November 14, 2009 at 3:28 PM
He wasn’t joking.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:31 PM
I said “rule of thumb.” There are some decent editorials in the NYT, but most are bad. But that doesn’t entitle anyone to say, “A *specific* editorial is bad,” because I haven’t read it. Do you understand the distinction?
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Given that bullsh-t explanation, I’m not sure *you* do!
In an alternate Universe, perhaps one with a teensy bit more objectivity, we might see a Newsweek cover of Obama doing the deep bow to Akihito. Subtitle:
CAN OBAMA KICK THE HABIT OF APOLOGIZING FOR US –
AND AGGRANDIZING HIMSELF?
drunyan8315 on November 14, 2009 at 3:33 PM
NsW is just trying to save itself. They know that anything about Sarah sells–good or bad. It’s called exploitation(and also abject fear of her popularity).
jeanie on November 14, 2009 at 3:35 PM
FWIW not everyone interpreted that comment in the facile and credulous way you did.
RD on November 14, 2009 at 3:28 PM
He wasn’t joking.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Did I say anyone interpreted the comment as a joke? Not everyone passes off their failures as “jokes” after the fact like you.
It doesn’t answer, what was Newsweak asking? Forget the movie reference, why is she considered a “problem” to them and does she have to be dealt with?
StevefromMKE on November 14, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Yeah, see, that’s the “cover” of the magazine. It usually has kind of a provocative cover in order to entice readers into buying said magazine. In order to know what the answers are, you have to read the “article” (these are what magazines are comprised of on the inside, primarily). Since the “article” isn’t available on the internet yet, no one knows the answer to your question.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Has anybody ever seen interviews with Jon Meacham of Newsweek? If I had to describe him, the words “faux intellectual”, “dim witted”, and “mind numbingly boring” come to mind.
jdflorida on November 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM
He’s got the biggest schnozz I’ve ever seen.
Blake on November 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM
“Bad for America” – actually it says “bad for the GOP and bad the rest of us” – tending to imply that Newsweek and its readers are NOT the GOP, even though you’d think on the face of it, if she were bad for the GOP, that would be good for “the rest of us.” Apparently, the lady pictured has managed the amazing feat of not being just bad, and not just doubly bad, but bad in such a way that she can be bad for the enemy and for the friend.
CK MacLeod on November 14, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Amen.
The misguided attempt to disguise what are really personal and partisan attacks as “problems we all share”, with the patina of objectivity, is what leads folks like Newsweek into these rhetorical traps. Hoist on their own petard, they are. Strong with Da Bullsh-t are they! And forever dominate their destiny it will. It’s a trap that’s hard to get out of without eventually crying “mea culpa”, and taking the rap. We’ll see…
Eh. That cover will only result in her selling more books. Thank you, Newspeak!
Blake on November 14, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Would anyone really be surprised to learn that dying media outlets like Newsweak were being propped up by that nasty old bug-eyed louse George Soros?
Sharke on November 14, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Since the “article” isn’t available on the internet yet, no one knows the answer to your question.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Is your brain that weak that you can’t extrapolate what this rag would say? They’re afraid of her, and I suspect, you are too. Most RINO’s are gutless turds who compromise at every turn.
StevefromMKE on November 14, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Let’s see if I have Newsweek’s positions about right?
Sarah Palin:
1. The Enemy
2. Guilty of Thought Crimes
3. Dangerous for America
4. Ignorant Rural Rube
5. Evil Racist Bigoted Sexist Homophobe
6. She and her family are deserving legitimate targets of a relentless campaign of character assassination and persecution
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
1. Victim of Amerikkkan Hegemony, Bullying, and Torture
2. Brilliant Mastermind
3. Deserving of all rights of an American citizen via our courts.
4. Innocent until proven guilty.
Nidal M. Hasan:
1. Victim of Racist Bigotry Against Muslims.
2. Victim of Pre-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
3. Victim of American Gun Culture
4. Victim of Hostile Military Culture
5. Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Newsweek and their ilk are disgusting beyond measure! They are a disgrace.
Feel free to add to the list.
DeathB4Tyranny on November 14, 2009 at 4:59 PM
They still have the temerity to call it Newsweek? I’ve gotten used to thinking of it as Crapweek.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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
Wow.
Patrick Ishmael on November 14, 2009 at 12:41 PM
For an irrelevant quitter, she takes a lot of gunfire from everyone, doesn’t she?
lorien1973 on November 14, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Hey , what to do losing sales.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 12:42 PM
So what, like 15 people are going to read that?
RarestRX on November 14, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Well, this should pretty much get rid of the rest of their readership.
You should put a picture of whoever is in charge of Newsweek up and explain how he is “Bad news for America”.
What a junk magazine Newsweek has become!
crosspatch on November 14, 2009 at 12:43 PM
It’s like the extreme left wing media got PTSD..
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 12:44 PM
And so Newsweek takes that big step into the abyss where dwells Alex Jones, Chuck Harder, & Art Bell.
fronclynne on November 14, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Oh, I don’t know Newsweak, maybe once you tell us how we can solve a problem like BarryOHopenchange, we can work on that one together?
It’s a good thing she’s useless, stupid, worthless, irrelevant, and bad for all of us. I’d hate to see what the media would look like if they actually thought she had a chance of rallying the GOP.
(Needless to say, /SARC)
JamesLee on November 14, 2009 at 12:46 PM
The media is trying ohhhhsooo hard to scare her away from something….
epic fail media.
Newsweek: folding in more ways than one these days.
ted c on November 14, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Someone should tell Newsweek that Maria was the heroine that foiled the Nazis. Unless they are trying to say she’s a heroine, then nevermind.
Spirit of 1776 on November 14, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Palin Traumatic Sarah Disorder?
JamesLee on November 14, 2009 at 12:47 PM
LOL, Newsweak goes to war without ammo.
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I know what they are trying to do with using that pic, but it is a nice one.
aikidoka on November 14, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Is this legit???
RedNewEnglander on November 14, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Is this real? Or some sort of photoshop?
Not that it would surprise me from Newsweek….
cntrlfrk on November 14, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Haha Newsweek has to depend on smoking hot pictures of Palin to sell copies.
commodore on November 14, 2009 at 12:50 PM
(add) It’s so hard to tell anymore.
RedNewEnglander on November 14, 2009 at 12:50 PM
The pictures are from a Runner’s World photoshoot.
commodore on November 14, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Newsweek is in the gutter. Is there anything else we expect from this stupid rag?
Palin scares the establishment and liberals. This only helps her.
cubachi on November 14, 2009 at 12:51 PM
But an inexperienced left-wing ideologue surrounded by incompetents and radicals that nevertheless assuages white guilt is A-ok.
Purple Fury on November 14, 2009 at 12:52 PM
How do you solve a problem like Newsweek? It is not a serious new organization anymore… it is too the left of TNR…
ninjapirate on November 14, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Circulation must really suck for them. Trying to tap into Palinistas to boost rack sales.
Next week – Glenn Beck.
Curmudgeon on November 14, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Permanent Traumatic Sarah Derangement.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 12:52 PM
No kidding. I want a hi-res version for my desktop.
ElectricPhase on November 14, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Yummy
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Ahh, Nile, that’s much better than mine.
JamesLee on November 14, 2009 at 12:53 PM
The liberal anti-aircraft guns have awoken….
Robert_Paulson on November 14, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I wonder if Frum wrote the article
…
Dritanian on November 14, 2009 at 12:53 PM
You have to wonder how their readers cope with Sarah smiling at them..
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 12:54 PM
“See? We’re putting her on the cover of our weaky-weak magazine. That proves she’s irrevelant! It does! It does! Pay attention to us!”
SagebrushPuppet on November 14, 2009 at 12:54 PM
I’m going to request that they send me the cover but keep the rest of the rag.
VegasRick on November 14, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Yeah, we’re totally gonna believe the folks who slobberknobbed a witless hack like 0bama when they say Sarah Palin is bad for the GOP and the country /s
Sekhmet on November 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM
I’d rather wait for Post-Totus Socialism Destruction.
cs89 on November 14, 2009 at 12:56 PM
If Reagan was in a time capsule and was present today, this would be Newsweek’s cover:
http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/reagan6-768781.gif
Some of us are old enough to recall Palin is being treated no more harshly than he was. The country would not have it, and the media became even more rabid.
Marcus on November 14, 2009 at 12:56 PM
I’m surprised Runner’s World let them use their photo.
yogi41 on November 14, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Sarah had a bad day yesterday, with the Althouse blogpost calling her stupid and the AP “fact checking’ her book. I also thought her Facebook post did not strike quite the right tone. Newsweek to the rescue! What the left doesn’t realize is that Sarah gets a lot of support from people who think, “If they hate her this much she must have something going for her.”
Ted Torgerson on November 14, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Hmmmmm
I wish there could be a nation wide poll or statistical survey that would ask people if Sarah Palin is being targeted by the media.
upinak on November 14, 2009 at 12:59 PM
notice how Newsweek plasters their words over that US Army banner
commodore on November 14, 2009 at 12:59 PM
That’s amazing. What incredible fear these people must have of her.
tmi3rd on November 14, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I still don’t see the “problem”. That’s a good picture.
Unless by “problem” they mean “smart, influential woman with an opnion and who refuses to treat the MSM with undeserved deference.”
stevezilla on November 14, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Frum was too busy going blind with a copy of Runners World in the bathroom.
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:01 PM
All Palin all the time. I can not wait for the oprah interview and the Rush interview and the hannity interview. Her self imposed exile over the last 10 months as been hard on her supporters. Sure we had the occasional facebook page that redirects the national dialogue or slams the knownothing dems. Or the policy op-eds on energy to enjoy, but it just doesn’t fill the void. Palin unlike Mr., I bow to everyone, Obama is someone I actually want to hear speak.
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Has anybody ever seen interviews with Jon Meacham of Newsweek? If I had to describe him, the words “faux intellectual”, “dim witted”, and “mind numbingly boring” come to mind.
jdflorida on November 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Frum was too busy going blind with a copy of Runners World in the bathroom.
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Why? was a shirtless Obama on the cover?
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Heh. It could have been Frum. It says, ‘How she’s bad news for the GOP’. I know Newsweek is horribly concerned about the future of the GOP.
Spirit of 1776 on November 14, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Lately, Newsweek is selling only about 66,000 newsstand copies a week. That’s all.
Emperor Norton on November 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM
If it could be measured as to which person Newsweek hated the most, you can bet the metrics would be based upon the individual who had the maximum adverse impact on their core agenda and beliefs.
Reagan has been gone for years. Bush is largely silent these days, Dick and Liz Cheney are fighting the good fight, but are not doing a lot of public pronouncements, and nearly most of the GOP don’t get a lot of play beyond the New Media.
Enter Sarah Palin. She is the TRUE One that the Left fears the most. Even back in the day when Barack Obama was still just a senator, no one on the right ever became outhouse rat insane wild over the prospects of his potential POTUS candidacy the way the Left does over Palin.
She is the only conservative (currently) with a built-in mass base that could win the GOP primaries and gather enough of a consensus of independents and right leaning Democrats to unseat the current POTUS and undo some of the damage brought about by the current Congress.
The opposition can’t handle that. Thus, the need to go into Terminator Mode and take her out before her star gets any brighter. If Palin can keep her head about her, avoid the serious gaffes (a la Newt’s weird behavior), and not be overexposed, she has a legitimate chance to be the 45th POTUS.
But be warned: PDS is alive and well, and it will get ugly before it is over with.
itzWicks on November 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM
EWWW, even funnier!
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM
All they care about is that these words (sorry, can’t repeat them verbatim): “she’s bad for the GOP–and the rest of us” (emphasis mine) stick in the minds of people standing in the checkout lines at Albertson’s and Safeway. They don’t care if they sell any copies–just so long as they can damage her future prospects with that little caveat about how she’s bad for the rest of us.
theotherone on November 14, 2009 at 1:06 PM
With that picture on the cover I don’t think anyone will notice the words.
smfoushee on November 14, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Sarah had a bad day yesterday, with the Althouse blogpost calling her stupid and the AP “fact checking’ her book. I also thought her Facebook post did not strike quite the right tone. Newsweek to the rescue! What the left doesn’t realize is that Sarah gets a lot of support from people who think, “If they hate her this much she must have something going for her.”
Ted Torgerson on November 14, 2009 at 12:58 PM
LOL…bad day? Althouse blogpost? you mean the one that didn’t know what it was talking about?
And the fact checking? You mean the fact checking where AP agrees 100% with palin that she usally doesn’t go to expensive hotel rooms?
And the facebook post on the KSM outragous decsion of Obama?
Yeah bad day…..k
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:07 PM
I think Palin sells more books than that.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Damn you. I had almost banished the moobs vacation glamor shot from my memory.
ElectricPhase on November 14, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Palin gets 15 Times that each day. Palin is emerging as one who is really starting to have control over the message. I would predict that after the book release there will be no stopping her.
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:08 PM
“Sarah had a bad day yesterday”
You are going to see a “full court press” from the left wing media like Newsweek. It will be fairly well coordinated, too. Not coordinated necessarily by any organization, but more coordinated in cocktail parties and various other social networking by the leftest “journalist” crowd.
They will walk themselves so far out into left field that they are going to “lose” the majority of their audience and they won’t even realize it because they surround themselves with people who think the same way. They think they are “average” or “moderate” because they seem to share opinions with others around them. Problem is that they and the others around them are so disconnected from mainstream America that they don’t even realize they are out of step.
crosspatch on November 14, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Now that I think about it, this seems to be a running theme with the Left. Time did it with Rush: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19950123,00.html
Sarah’s in good company.
theotherone on November 14, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Do the Commies at Newsweek think that’s a bad picture or something?
The [most fashionable evah!] First Lady wishes she looked that good in throwaway sportswear.
mudskipper on November 14, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Somebody’s got a feeeeva…
d1carter on November 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Hey, not everyone can be good for everyone and everything like Obama.
Kataklysmic on November 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I don’t get the point of using that photo. We have a constant barrage of Obambi basketball photo ops. What is wrong with Sarah running?
ctmom on November 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I haven’t read the article, but this is so egregious that I am trying to imagine how the headline might be being used to increase sales while the article itself is in a different context that is suggested.
csdeven on November 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Shooting blanks
SouthernGent on November 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM
What, there were words on the cover?
Gottafang on November 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM
“Electronic populism threatens to short-circuit the representative democracy.”
Deeply sickening people in the media.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 1:14 PM
AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report.
Wow. That’s ten “AP writers” plus Calvin Woodward, the AP writer whose twinkling pen honed the above contributions into the turgid sludge of the actual report. That’s 11 writers for a 695-word report. What on? Obamacare? The Iranian nuke program? The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
No, the Associated Press assigned 11 writers to “fact-check” Sarah Palin’s new book, and in return the 11 fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. That’s 1.8333333 writers for each error. What earth-shattering misstatements did they uncover for this impressive investment? Stand well back:
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Kind of sounds like a certain HA blogger….
cs89 on November 14, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Newsweek isn’t even part of the MSM anymore. Actually, it’s not much at all…print is dead.
Nice death-rattle, though.
Asher on November 14, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Precisely, The Wash Post tried to control the message in Va Gov race. Epic Fail. Times are changing, and the Tide is Turning.
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:16 PM
blatantblue on November 14, 2009 at 1:16 PM
If you wonder why American newspapering is dying, consider this sign-off:
AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report.
Wow. That’s ten “AP writers” plus Calvin Woodward, the AP writer whose twinkling pen honed the above contributions into the turgid sludge of the actual report. That’s 11 writers for a 695-word report. What on? Obamacare? The Iranian nuke program? The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
No, the Associated Press assigned 11 writers to “fact-check” Sarah Palin’s new book, and in return the 11 fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. That’s 1.8333333 writers for each error. What earth-shattering misstatements did they uncover for this impressive investment? Stand well back:
PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking “only” for reasonably priced rooms and not “often” going for the “high-end, robe-and-slippers” hotels.
THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard)…
That looks like AP paid 1.8333333 fact-checkers to agree with Mrs Palin: She says she didn’t “often” go for “high-end” hotels; they say she “usually opted for less-pricey hotels”. That’s gonna make one must-see edition of “Point/Counterpoint”.
Or is AP arguing “four nights” counts as “often”? Is that the point? AP assigned 11 reporters to demonstrate that four is a large number?
Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker and his vast team of researchers (17 Minneapolis-area Somali jihadists, 29 Acorn-accredited child-sex slaves, and 43 unemployed Columbia School of Journalism graduates) fact-check AP’s fact-checkers.
Coming next:
PALIN: How many AP fact-checkers does it take to change a lightbulb?
FACT: Palin has gone seriously “rogue” in her facts here. AP fact-checkers are prevented per union regulations from changing lightbulbs.
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Don’t you just love how worried they are about what’s good for the GOP?
UnderstandingisPower on November 14, 2009 at 1:16 PM
How do you get rid of a rag like Newsweek? It’s bad for the Left and for people in line at supermarkets everywhere.
darii on November 14, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Perhaps it is a play on this?
How do you solve a problem like Sarah?
csdeven on November 14, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Good idea in theory, but the poll would be highly skewed against her if conducted by the ususal suspects. And if it were accurate, those same entities would immediately discount it. And unforutnately we know a majority of Americans can be fooled by that. Exhibit A is who we have in office.
Kataklysmic on November 14, 2009 at 1:17 PM
blatantblue on November 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Not a very new pic of Palin for the cover…and again, that’s no way to treat the American flag; looks like it was simply tossed on the back of that chair.
JetBoy on November 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM
“Declares” war?
Don’t call it a comeback, they’ve been at war for years.
Dark Eden on November 14, 2009 at 1:19 PM
At least as Newsweak dies it looks attractive. And yes that is how I spell newsweek.
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:20 PM
In other news … TAHITI DECLARES WAR ON CHINA.
Seriously – no one’s paying attention to the MSM anymore except to wonder what makes this woman such a threat to them that keep going nuclear on her.
HondaV65 on November 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Newsweek, lol, they’re still in business?
WisCon on November 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Draped.
And even you don’t believe she stores American flags on the back of chairs. Clearly it was put in a photo-shoot to show her association with America First.
Spirit of 1776 on November 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM
blatantblue on November 14, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Damn, that’s just pathetic. Pretty emblematic of “real” news organizations though, enjoy your irrelevancy MSM.
clearbluesky on November 14, 2009 at 1:22 PM
No, I know the pic of her is legit (seen the original before), I’m asking if the Newsweak cover is legit.
RedNewEnglander on November 14, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Newsweek? I think I may have seen one of those in the dentist office once.
No, wait, that was Highlights.
Joe Caps on November 14, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Great analogy!
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Who’s the stronger woman? Michelle Obama, who has famously great arms? Or Sarah Palin, mother 5, former Governor of Alaska and VP candidate?
Why, it’s Michelle, of course. If you say otherwise, you’re a neocon racist.
Nethicus on November 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Palinistas have an excuse for everything…It certainly wasn’t “draped” with care…
Yes…I realize it’s for a photo shoot. How Palin stores her flags, I’m sure I don’t know. But if that were me in Palin’s position, I would not have my pic taken with the American flag “draped” sloppily like that.
It may seem inconsequential, but respect for out flag IS important.
JetBoy on November 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Didn’t newsweek place explosive charges in a pickup truck to show how easily they explode if the truck has a collision from the side?
Oh that might have been the other credible news source.
daesleeper on November 14, 2009 at 1:27 PM
You better worry about Cris flip flopping and leg-humping obama.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Yes…I realize it’s for a photo shoot. How Palin stores her flags, I’m sure I don’t know. But if that were me in Palin’s position, I would not have my pic taken with the American flag “draped” sloppily like that.
It may seem inconsequential, but respect for out flag IS important.
JetBoy on November 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Well at least she wasn’t standing on it like William ayers.
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 1:29 PM
What’s that saying? You need to worry only when they’re
talking about you.
For someone who Dems have us believe has about much relevance as Howard Dean, she surely gets a lot more attention than anyone other than Obama.
In fact, for as much scrutiny as she receives from the media, you’d think that she was elected vice president.
BuckeyeSam on November 14, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Did you just call me a Palinista?
I don’t disagree. However it does not connotate a disrespect. A poor judgment, perhaps. But there is no evidence of disrespect or for a pattern of such thought from her.
Spirit of 1776 on November 14, 2009 at 1:29 PM
couldn’t open the pdf for some reason. What was it?
Itchee Dryback on November 14, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Newsweak is still in business?
Who knew.
Oh wait, as AP would say, “What could go wrong?”
victor82 on November 14, 2009 at 1:33 PM
They fear her balls because she’ll squish their guy’s ping pong ones, with ease.
Schadenfreude on November 14, 2009 at 1:33 PM
I hate Newsweek but that cover is HAAAAWT.
Daemonocracy on November 14, 2009 at 1:34 PM
How to solve a problem like Sarah? Just keep doing what you’re doing. Keep lying. Misquote as often as possible. Make up quotes where there is nothing to misquote. Quote out of context. Deify her opponents. Levi Johnston. Photoshop. Say she’s stupid. Say it again. And again. Levi Johnston.
Repeat as necessary.
Blaise on November 14, 2009 at 1:34 PM
The cover of Newsweek with this picture on it and the caption “How do you solve a problem like Sarah, she’s bad news for the GOP and everyone else too”.
clearbluesky on November 14, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Thanks!
Me likee…me likee alot.
Itchee Dryback on November 14, 2009 at 1:38 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/10/obama-charlie-christ-is-g_n_165636.html
Maybe, but if I were in Crist’s position I don’t think I’d be supporting the Stimulus to the point Obama made an… interesting… comment about Crist’s support for the program.
(Yes it’s Huffpo, didn’t quickly find another link for the Fox clip)
cs89 on November 14, 2009 at 1:39 PM
David Axelrod called John Meacham and threatened the latter with bodily harm one more time.
Newsweak had the pic of Sarah in her running shorts with the American flag in her living room. The headline was “How do you solve a problem like Sarah?” The underline was: “Why Palin is bad for the GOP-and everyone Else”.
It’s as if an entire newsweekly turned themselves into a bunch of concern trolls.
Jesus. How pathetic. I can’t wait until Newsweak dies.
victor82 on November 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Crist was grabbing Obamas hose there, with both hands.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Holy crap. Is this supposed to be objective journalism? F’n douchebags, and I’m not even a Palinista. Of course, journalism officially died last fall as the media joined forces to take her down, then kept on digging with the attacks on the former Miss California for not answering a question the way they wanted and sharing the same view Obama does on an issue.
These people have no shame, so sense of decency or integrity. Why even bother claiming these tools are nothing but an arm of the DNC and the Left?
changer1701 on November 14, 2009 at 1:44 PM
In three years we’ll solve the Obama problem,
JammieWearingFool on November 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Well, this is more of a war on “Palinism” than Palin but we get the point. Liberal elite opinion is more worried about those people she stands for then for Palin herself. They think if they can defeat Palin that those forces will go away.
They’re wrong.
I’m not a fan of Palin – I think she’s in way over her head – but I’m sympathetic to Palinism or the forces she represents. We have a largely corrupt Washington that is sleepwalking through history.
Somebody needs to wake them up.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM
We’re becoming enslaved by the banks and the federal government, and these people are trying to act like Palin who has little power right now is the “problem”…
The Dean on November 14, 2009 at 1:48 PM
She’s bad news for the ugly, crust ridden jabba-the-hutt feminists?
And when exactly did Newsweak ever care a fig about the GOP?
StevefromMKE on November 14, 2009 at 1:51 PM
For those who can’t open or use the PDF, here’s a jpg based on a screen capture:
http://ckmac.com/thewholething/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/newsweek_palin_cover.jpg
CK MacLeod on November 14, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Thanks! I agree.
The only rational explanation is desperation. Palin was in over her head?? These self deluded ideologues opened up a self exploding can of crap when they thought the entire country was as gullible and easily lead around by the nose as the average liberal progressive and juvenile leftie. They don’t know how to deal with truth. Its a foreign concept to them.
Can’t wait for them to really start to make lame excuses, and plastic faces with worried eyes..like a con man caught red handed in the con.
Itchee Dryback on November 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I’m sure Sarah thanks Newsweek for the boost in her book sales…
Wyznowski on November 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I HAVE GOT TO READ THIS BOOK!
HUFFPOST banner – “PALIN TAKES AIM: Rips McCain Campaign, Steve Schmidt In ‘Going Rogue’… Gives Thanks To ‘Fair And Balanced Media Folks’” – by Sam Stein and Lila Shapiro: “Clocking in at over 400 pages, ‘Going Rogue’ is, at its heart, one giant complaint with the conduct of John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. At the nexus of Palin’s grievances lies [Steve] Schmidt, a character cast as out of touch, overly cautious, and vindictive. … Peppered throughout are a stream of insulting descriptions of Schmidt and others of the ‘professional political caste.’ … At one point during the campaign, Schmidt discussed his hopes of getting a nutritionist on the bus. Palin, first assuming that it’s for the entire staff, compliments the idea. Only then, does Schmidt tell her, ‘No, it’s for you… You gotta get off that Atkins Diet.’ Palin, writing up the incident months later, couldn’t help but comment on Schmidt’s ‘rotund physique.’ … ‘I’m not on the Atkins Diet, Steve.’ … ‘Don’t you know what a high-protein diet does?’ he asked, ignoring what I had just said. … I interrupted his lecture. ‘Steve, you know what I really need? Half an hour to go for a run in these beautiful cities we’re visiting. Also, seeing my kids does wonders for my soul.’ He barreled on as if I hadn’t spoken. ‘Headquarters is flying in a nutritionist, and for three days you’re going to be on a diet balanced in carbohydrates and nitrates and –’ … I had a humbling experience while we were back in Wasilla for the Charlie Gibson interview in September. … While the crews turned my kitchen into a television studio, I took Nicolle into my bedroom and showed her what I thought I should pack for the trail. She flipped through my wardrobe with a raised eyebrow. ‘No… no… no…,’ she said as she slid each garment aside on its hanger.’”
If half of this stuff is true….McCain’s people were utter morons
unseen on November 14, 2009 at 2:07 PM
You dont say.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Left out of the tagline: “Why Sarah Palin is …
badgood for magazine sales.”RD on November 14, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Patrick Ishmael on November 14, 2009 at 12:41 PM
ditto
29Victor on November 14, 2009 at 2:10 PM
It is true alright, and now perhaps you can see why the beltway insiders of the GOP are attacking her today. You see, she is honest, and they are scared to DEATH of honesty.
She is also one of us, and they are scared that they will lose more control over their preferred puppets because of her.
DannoJyd on November 14, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Yes, Newsweek, everyone’s afraid of the big bad bogeywoman… and nothing says “bogeywoman” like a hawt celeb photo with a track & field theme. Gotcha.
RD on November 14, 2009 at 2:13 PM
I don’t know about running, but there ain’t a darn thing wrong with THAT
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 2:16 PM
i second that notion with my fifth limb
blatantblue on November 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Boy, you guys go crazy when someone criticizes your messiah, huh.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Wow.
And with a slogan of “why Sarah Palin is bad for the GOP… and everyone else” this ain’t gonna do it either.
There’s nothing left guys… it’s time for them to move straight to the alien heads sticking out of bodies and telephoto shots of celebs doing freaky stuff: “do ya want a paycheck or not? … well do ya?”
RD on November 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Are you still on the messiah kick?
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Nothing – the photo is ravishingly positive and will help to sell magazines even to pro-Palin or anyway non-anti-Palin people who would be put off by the anti-Palin slant. It adds up to “balance” in the mind of an editor. We boost Palin and exploit her, but quieten our overwhelming liberal readership (and staff) but unloading on her like she’s a combination of ebola and influenza.
CK MacLeod on November 14, 2009 at 2:23 PM
its more than criticism
its egregious
blatantblue on November 14, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Have you read the article, or are you basing that on the picture?
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Never mind, I know the answer.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:24 PM
You’re correct. They don’t necessarily fear Palin, they fear us. They know that she is the image of us, and it infuriates them.
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Well at least Newsweek finally admitted that they are just a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.
Why are you whining – Obama doesn’t bother to show respect for the flag when it’s actually displayed appropriately.
katiejane on November 14, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Dang! Heck of a thing, the McCain campaign. Can’t believe they lost to a nimrod like Axelrod…
RD on November 14, 2009 at 2:27 PM
I don’t think you do. You’re missing it by a thousand miles.
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 2:28 PM
I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Palin for the placement of the flag – it looks like a photo shoot. Furthermore, given that one of her kids is serving overseas, I’m not really worried about her proving her patriotism. I mean, I think everyone should be more respectful of the flag, but whatever. I’m less concerned with symbolism and more concerned with actions.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:31 PM
No, I know the answer. Someone said that this attack on Palin was “egregious.” Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but you can’t really say that without reading the article. We don’t know why Newsweek thinks she’s bad. Maybe they’ve got a new take on it. Or maybe it’s a bunch of vicious nonsense. We’ll see on Monday, I guess.
The guy who said that was basing his criticism of the attack being “egregious” on the picture. He was judging the content of the article based on the cover of the magazine.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:34 PM
The cover says “Why Sarah Palin is bad for the GOP – and bad for America too.” How could the article itself be anything other than an egregious attack?
Ted Torgerson on November 14, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Because it might be a very well-reasoned attack. I don’t know. I haven’t read it. Neither has anyone else.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Frum was too busy going blind with a copy of Runners World in the bathroom.
Amadeus on November 14, 2009 at 1:01 PM
He had to switch because the pages of his Playgirl were all stuck together.
SKYFOX on November 14, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Newseek , the mouse that roared.
the_nile on November 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM
You are right, it could be. Do you play poker? I’d love to play poker with you…
alexwest on November 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM
A news magazine does a cover piece saying that Palin is “bad for America” and that’s not an attack on her?
It may be a fair attack or an unfair attack.
But’s it an attack.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Yep, and Frosty the Snowman may be the junior Senator from Hawaii. It’s been 15 months of crying wolf by these people. No one is listening anymore.
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM
More accurate subtitle:
SHE’S BAD NEWS FOR THE DNC,
AND FOR EVERYBODY ELSE WE LOVE, TOO.
drunyan8315 on November 14, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Actually, portions of the article have been released…. go over to Politico or Newsbusters and see for yourself. Bottom line: you assumed that he was basing his criticism on the picture, but you don’t know that to be a fact. Of course, that didn’t stop you from stating it as a fact:
BPD on November 14, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Damn she’s got nice legs.
Mike Honcho on November 14, 2009 at 2:41 PM
“Bad for America” – actually it says “bad for the GOP and bad the rest of us” – tending to imply that Newsweek and its readers are NOT the GOP, even though you’d think on the face of it, if she were bad for the GOP, that would be good for “the rest of us.” Apparently, the lady pictured has managed the amazing feat of not being just bad, and not just doubly bad, but bad in such a way that she can be bad for the enemy and for the friend.
What a gal!
CK MacLeod on November 14, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Yes, I believe I said that it was an attack. That’s fine – Newsweek is pretty left wing and they’re entitled to criticize whoever they want. I’m sure National Review thinks Obama is bad for America. There’s nothing wrong with either of those things.
I’d be annoyed if it was an unfair attack, or an attack based on falsehoods or bad reasoning. But I haven’t read the article, and neither have any of you.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:44 PM
He was basing his criticism on the picture. The link was only to the picture, and he said the attack was “egregious” without citing to any particular passage in the article.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:47 PM
So, does Newsweek really care what happens to the GOP?
Nethicus on November 14, 2009 at 2:50 PM
This is beyond the pale by Newsweak.
So Sarah is a “problem” that “needs to be solved”?
Kind of like the “Jewish Problem” with the “Final Solution”?
Norwegian on November 14, 2009 at 2:52 PM
As I understand it, Meacham’s main argument in the piece is that Palin is too polarizing of a figure and that she and her supporters too ideological.
From a summary of the article:
It is difficult to imagine the 2012 nominee [i.e., Palin] choosing a more moderate running mate, not least because there are so few moderates left in the GOP. Even those of centrist inclinations are finding it virtually impossible to work with the administration for fear of a backlash from the base. We have been to this movie before, when the unreconstructed liberals of the fading New Deal-Great Society coalition obstinately refused to acknowledge the reality that America is a center-right nation, and that Democrats who wish to win national elections cannot run on the left.
This is the old “vital center” argument that without compromise and comity (because of the polarized parties) the government is deadlocked and incapable of “solving” our problems.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 2:52 PM
This is the dumbest thing ever written on the Internet.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Well, again, I haven’t read the article but that doesn’t really seem like that egregious of an attack. Kind of predictable. Not that great of an analysis, honestly. But not egregious.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:56 PM
I guess you missed that Frank Rich published on the net where he stated that Palin was “re-enacting Stalin’s purges”.
Which is worse? I’ll take the published piece in a major newspaper over an anonymous poster on a blog.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Thanks! Coming from you, that means a lot.
Norwegian on November 14, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Lighten up, Steve. It was a joke.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 2:58 PM
So you don’t much care for the health-care push, environmental idiocy like C&T, dumbing down the educational criteria in favor of ‘diversity’, and nudging people into pathetic little poofter cars? If you feel like its time for the people who make up victim groups to start paying their way…. You just might be a conservative.
Itchee Dryback on November 14, 2009 at 2:59 PM
You just compared a Newsweek cover critical of Sarah Palin to the Holocaust.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Yeah, but you gotta’ admit Rich’s was dumber.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 3:01 PM
LOL! I loved Gallant and Goofus.
yogi41 on November 14, 2009 at 3:01 PM
If she’s polarizing, they’re the polarizers. Had she been treated with an ounce of respect and decorum after the election, she would be in Juneau minding her own business and running the State of Alaska effectively like she had before the election. The Democratic Party and the media targeted her as an example. What they didn’t bet on was that she wouldn’t play a rigged game by their rigged rules and with their payed off referees. They started playing hard ball on the softball field. Now their upset that she decided to play rugby instead, and she’s kicking their carcasses all over the field.
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 3:01 PM
they’re
Forgive my crappy grammar.
jimmy2shoes on November 14, 2009 at 3:02 PM
GOOD GOD, HOW STUPID OF ME!!!!
I forgot!
NEWSWEAK IS TO THE MAGAZINE INDUSTRY AS ALLAHPUNDIT IS TO THE ONLINE BLOGGING INDUSTRY!
THE ONLY REASON WHY JOHN MEACHAM HAS PALIN HEADLINING HIS FILTHY LITTLE MAGAZINE WITH PALIN SHOWING HER LEGS IS TO GET HIT COUNT AND TO HAVE PEOPLE PICK UP THE MAGAZINE. HE HAS ONLY A CIRCULATION OF 66,000 SALES!!!
ALLAH DOES THE SAME THING, DAY IN, DAY OUT!!!
Silly me. Palin is all about circulation.
victor82 on November 14, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Most of us here are basically laughing at this and shaking our heads at Newsweek and you talk as if we’re climbing the walls and screaming with rage. Whatever, you Obama supporter you.
Aitch748 on November 14, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Didn’t read the article, don’t know the context. Most of things Frank Rich says are stupid, though. A good rule of thumb is, if it’s on the NYT editorial page, it’s stupid.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:04 PM
The Republican party nominated a non-polarizing, more centrist candidate in John McCain and who did Newsweek and Meacham support? Support, heck, swoon over?
The most liberal Senator in the US Senate.
Pardon me if I’m suspicious about Newsweek’s concerns for more centrist presidential candidates.
SteveMG on November 14, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Who’s “us”? Does Newsweek really believe it identifies with “us”?
yogi41 on November 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Just out of curiosity, how is your assumption about the editorial page of the NYT, sight unseen, different then assumptions about Newsweek articles, sight unseen?
Spirit of 1776 on November 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Yawn. Get with the program, RINO. A Newsweek contributor has already suggested a “Final Soluition”.
Norwegian on November 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Newsbusters cites that Meacham blames Palin for Lindsey Graham’s censure:
yogi41 on November 14, 2009 at 3:17 PM
I said “rule of thumb.” There are some decent editorials in the NYT, but most are bad. But that doesn’t entitle anyone to say, “A *specific* editorial is bad,” because I haven’t read it. Do you understand the distinction?
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I find this to be completey amazing! I just don’t know what to say… The SRM has just lost its mind re Palin… I’ve really never seen anything like it… But, as I postd yesterday…if she runs I’ll volunteer for her and if she says support x candadate… I will…
Funny how they can only find fantastic pictures of her to use huh! That to me might be a miscalculation on their part because the yourger more superficial crowd will like that…
CCRWM on November 14, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Certainly.
As a rule of thumb, NYT editorials are dumb. Also, as a rule of news magazine stories on Palin are dumb and rely on false information. And on occasion, the cable (news) networks abuse the truth as well, as we saw last week with PS’d Palin pictures on MSNBC.
Spirit of 1776 on November 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM
This from Proud “Lighten up Steve, it was a joke” Rino.
FWIW not everyone interpreted that comment in the facile and credulous way you did.
RD on November 14, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Yes, exactly. I can say, “Keith Olbermann is a useless fraud,” and be 100% accurate. But it would not be fair to say, “Olbermann next week is going to suck and be worthless in terms of delivering actual ‘news’ to people,” because I haven’t watched any of that yet.
I’m sure there will be plenty to criticize in the Palin article. Wait til you’ve read it before you do that, though.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM
He wasn’t joking.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Given that bullsh-t explanation, I’m not sure *you* do!
“Just kidding.”
RD on November 14, 2009 at 3:31 PM
In an alternate Universe, perhaps one with a teensy bit more objectivity, we might see a Newsweek cover of Obama doing the deep bow to Akihito. Subtitle:
CAN OBAMA KICK THE HABIT OF APOLOGIZING FOR US –
AND AGGRANDIZING HIMSELF?
drunyan8315 on November 14, 2009 at 3:33 PM
NsW is just trying to save itself. They know that anything about Sarah sells–good or bad. It’s called exploitation(and also abject fear of her popularity).
jeanie on November 14, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Did I say anyone interpreted the comment as a joke? Not everyone passes off their failures as “jokes” after the fact like you.
RD on November 14, 2009 at 3:37 PM
It doesn’t answer, what was Newsweak asking? Forget the movie reference, why is she considered a “problem” to them and does she have to be dealt with?
Go take your weaksauce elsewhere.
StevefromMKE on November 14, 2009 at 3:37 PM
There is plenty to criticize about the title of the article.
Spirit of 1776 on November 14, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Yeah, see, that’s the “cover” of the magazine. It usually has kind of a provocative cover in order to entice readers into buying said magazine. In order to know what the answers are, you have to read the “article” (these are what magazines are comprised of on the inside, primarily). Since the “article” isn’t available on the internet yet, no one knows the answer to your question.
Proud Rino on November 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM
He’s got the biggest schnozz I’ve ever seen.
Blake on November 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Amen.
The misguided attempt to disguise what are really personal and partisan attacks as “problems we all share”, with the patina of objectivity, is what leads folks like Newsweek into these rhetorical traps. Hoist on their own petard, they are. Strong with Da Bullsh-t are they! And forever dominate their destiny it will. It’s a trap that’s hard to get out of without eventually crying “mea culpa”, and taking the rap. We’ll see…
RD on November 14, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Unbelievable. The leftards have really lost it.
Blake on November 14, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Eh. That cover will only result in her selling more books. Thank you, Newspeak!
Blake on November 14, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Would anyone really be surprised to learn that dying media outlets like Newsweak were being propped up by that nasty old bug-eyed louse George Soros?
Sharke on November 14, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Is your brain that weak that you can’t extrapolate what this rag would say? They’re afraid of her, and I suspect, you are too. Most RINO’s are gutless turds who compromise at every turn.
StevefromMKE on November 14, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Let’s see if I have Newsweek’s positions about right?
Sarah Palin:
1. The Enemy
2. Guilty of Thought Crimes
3. Dangerous for America
4. Ignorant Rural Rube
5. Evil Racist Bigoted Sexist Homophobe
6. She and her family are deserving legitimate targets of a relentless campaign of character assassination and persecution
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
1. Victim of Amerikkkan Hegemony, Bullying, and Torture
2. Brilliant Mastermind
3. Deserving of all rights of an American citizen via our courts.
4. Innocent until proven guilty.
Nidal M. Hasan:
1. Victim of Racist Bigotry Against Muslims.
2. Victim of Pre-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
3. Victim of American Gun Culture
4. Victim of Hostile Military Culture
5. Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Newsweek and their ilk are disgusting beyond measure! They are a disgrace.
Feel free to add to the list.
DeathB4Tyranny on November 14, 2009 at 4:59 PM
They still have the temerity to call it Newsweek? I’ve gotten used to thinking of it as Crapweek.
flataffect on November 14, 2009 at 8:37 PM