It’s not bad enough that Sarah Palin’s egregiously underqualified. Now she’s converting her base into a lynch mob:
“Palin’s routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness,” writes the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. “In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric’s questions for her ‘less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.’ At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, ‘Sit down, boy.’…
More here.
That’s one reporter’s version. Funny how the DNC, I mean the Washington Post, couldn’t actually write what she said; only what they heard.
What she actual said…
“Palin called her Couric interview “a probably less-than-successful interview I had recently with kinda mainstream media,” drawing boos from the crowd.
“Really, in that interview I was just getting really impatient because I was so convinced that Americans want to hear about the issues that are so important in your life,” including the war, the economy and education, she said.â€
I guess if you want to call that blaming Katie Couric, go ahead but judging from this story the Washington Post must have been the only reporters “greeted with shouts and tauntsâ€.
None of that reported here.
More…
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/oct/06/clearwater-palin-presses-obamas-link-ayers/
I’m going to leave the Washington Post = DNC mouthpiece thing alone. Seriously, what was that about?
The Post could very well have written a separate article about her speech. I don’t know. However, the behavior of the people attending the speech was news in and of itself. And if you read the article, you’ll note that the crowd wasn’t targeting the Post writer specifically. The problem I have with all of this is the us vs. them, win at all costs bullshit that has tainted Republican politics since well before the 2000 election.
Palin was given the opportunity to talk in depth about her position on all of those things last Thursday night. She didn’t bother, though; she stuck to her bullshit “folksy” persona, touched only the bare surface of the issues she claims to want to talk about, and retreated to her supposed strong position on energy whenever she didn’t have a good answer or couldn’t remember what she’d been coached to say.
She’s trotted out the long-since debunked Ayers storyline, with thinly veiled attempts to call Obama a terrorist. The so-called “liberal media” pounded on the Ayers and Wright stories relentlessly during the primary season, and neither story actually went anywhere. But leave it to Palin to bring that crap out now; it goes along well with the Republicans stated plans to get away from talking about the economy and get back to mudslinging because they have no good plan for the economy.
By the way, when did CBS become “kinda” mainstream media? Shouldn’t that “kinda” thing be reserved for NRO, Drudge, and DailyKOS?
While we’re at it, here’s a fair analysis of the whole Ayers thing. I sincerely hope that NPR isn’t viewed as a DNC mouthpiece organization. An excerpt:
Damn that silly Republican, not parroting the talking point like an automaton.
What do you know…the Washington Post did a writeup about her speech.
So. A Palin supporter called for the murder of Bill Ayers. Palin could have taken the high road for once and spoke out against mindless violence. But Sarah Barracuda couldn’t find the high road with a flashlight and a map.
Unless there was a moose on it.
OK.
Not that this should be important less than a month before the election, but I’ll ask…..how is the Ayers story “debunked”? I’m not arguing, just curious because of course there’s been alot about it. Overall, how someone like Ayers can end up a college professor is beyond me. I’ve heard alot of “downplaying” the relationship, he tried to blow up the Capitol when Obama was 8 years old, blah blah blah. How is the story wrong? The NPR article link said merely he felt he was taken out of context, did some nice things. It’s a spin piece. Is Obama a good judge of who to surround himself with?
short reply from the road: Ayers’ past didn’t seem to bother the Republicans who sat on the same board. Ayers was never convicted, unlike McCain’s buddies in the Keating Five. This is just a smokescreen to distract you from McCain’s weak position on the economy.
Also, McCain has surrounded himself with the scumbags who pull Bush’s puppetstrings. Do we need more of their shit? The answer is an emphatic NO.
Remember when McCain repeatedly said he’d run a positive campaign? His ads are now 100% negative, to Obama’s 30%. So much for McCain sticking to his word.
Plus I like Obama’s call for a concerted energy independence program, something that the other guy has had no interest in until the last month or so.
OJ wasn’t guilty either…
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=308271974461547
McCain admits that he made a poor judgment with Keating:
“The appearance of it was wrong. It’s a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do.”
Obama thinks Ayers is “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” or “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”
“scumbags”????
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/07/politics/fromtheroad/entry4507703.shtml
Yes. Scumbags. I’m not talking about the low-level schedule wrangler or the person who puts together the oh-so-helpful printed booklets. I’m talking about his advisors.
This quote always makes me chuckle:
“The appearance of it was wrong. It’s a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do.â€
Of course it was wrong, John. That doesn’t make it any less truthful. It’s also worse than trying to make hay out of something that Ayers did when Obama was EIGHT. You’re trying to make him guilty by association while you were guilty by submission. That’s not a small distinction, and it’s not something anybody cares about – as evidenced by your polling numbers.
If the polls are correct and it’s going to be a landslide
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14413.html
Why all the cheating?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10102008/news/politics/1_voter__72_registrations_132965.htm
I don’t know. There’s absolutely no excuse. We had entirely too much of that crap here in 2004 (thanks to Blackwell), and I don’t agree with any of it. I’d be happy if we went to a fully paper-based, hand counted voting system. At least we’d have a paper trail and no easily-hacked Diebold machines.
Dave,
Have you ever looked at this?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23733.html
It does a nice job at correcting McCain and Obama. Good resource.
Yeah, that’s a good resource.
I have another post brewing in my head in which I’ll tell y’all why I’m voting for Obama, I just don’t have time to lay it all out right now.
So you’ve decided on Obama? Whew. This indecisiveness was killing me.
BTW — if McCain had served on a board with some “unconvicted” abortion clinic bomber, he would be raked over the coals as well. Granted, it probably wouldn’t have happened when he was 8. I guess when he was 8, the country was railing against unfair taxation from England. PAH DONK A DONK!!! YEAH! —Come on, that was awesome.
Other Jim,
You are by far the funniest contributor to this site. You make me laugh out loud almost every time you write. Thanks. t*