The Family Research Council shooter, who pleaded guilty today to a terrorism charge, picked his target off a “hate map” on the website of the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center which is upset with the conservative group’s opposition to gay rights.
Floyd Lee Corkins II pleaded guilty to three charges including a charge of committing an act of terrorism related to the August 15, 2012 injuring of FRC’s guard. He told the FBI that he wanted to kill anti-gay targets and went to the law center’s website for ideas.
At a court hearing where his comments to the FBI were revealed, he said that he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” The shooting occurred after an executive with Chick-Fil-A announced his opposition to same-sex marriage.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said that the Southern Poverty Law Center should take responsibility for the shooting and take down their hate map.
“The day after Floyd Corkins came into the FRC headquarter and opened fire wounding one of our team members, I stated that while Corkins was responsible for the shooting, he had been given a license to perpetrate this act of violence by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center which has systematically and recklessly labeled every organization with which they disagree as a ‘hate group,’” he said.
I blame Sarah Palin. Riverdaughter told me that Sarah is the root of all evil and Riverdaughter is NEVER wrong.
Sarah Palin uttered more than 189,000 words over 150 appearances on various FOX broadcasts during her three years as an analyst at the network, or $15.85 per word
With the three-year contract now expired between FOX News and Sarah Palin, there is a wealth of commentary made by the former Alaska Governor and GOP Vice-Presidential nominee to dissect.
Palin, who was paid a reported $1 million per year as a contributor to FOX since mid-January 2010 when FOX announced her signing, may not have made quite the splash her employers had hoped during this three-year period, and would, on occasion go weeks between appearances.
So, did the network get their money’s worth?
I dunno. What is the normal rate for on-air talent at FOX? The author doesn’t tell us. But I do know that Sarah was getting a pretty good rate for speechifying to various groups and organizations.
But wait! There’s more!
Here’s some hard-hitting investigative reporting:
And just what words were spoken among the 189,221 delivered by Palin during her three-year contract at FOX?
She only uttered her patented “you betcha” line twice as a FOX employee, and both during her first month as a paid analyst.
The first came on a January 28, 2010 appearance during On the Record and the other at the specific request of FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace on February 7, 2010.
A slightly more common phrase Palin dropped was “Right on!” coming in at five mentions.
Palin discussed President Obama by name 786 times compared to just 41 mentions for her self-proclaimed favorite former president Ronald Reagan (as told to Gretchen Carlson) with 41 and Abraham Lincoln with three.
Religion was frequently peppered into Palin’s commentary and the former governor uttered “Amen” 111 times across her 151 appearances.
She also mentioned “God” 57 times, Christians and Christianity 16 times, Moses three times, and Jesus once.
This isn’t to say Palin didn’t occasionally dance with the devil – delivering the PG-13 “heck” 28 times, “darn” nine times, “hell” seven times, and “damn” twice.
Palin mentioned “Muslim” 13 times and “Islam” on six occasions.
Just when you think the Vile Progs can’t possibly get more insipid and inane, they go and prove you wrong. Whatever will they obsess over when she’s gone?
After a three-year run as a paid contributor to the nation’s highest-rated cable news channel, Sarah Palin and FOX News have cut ties, according to a source close to the former Alaska governor.
“It’s my understanding that Gov. Palin was offered a contract by FOX, and she decided not to renew the arrangement,” the source close to Palin told RCP. “She remains focused on broadening her message of common-sense conservatism across the country and will be expanding her voice in the national discussion.”
The source declined to say whether Palin would pursue a television contract with another news network, such as CNN.
Bill Shine, Executive Vice President at FOX, subsequently issued a statement to the New York Times confirming the news, saying, “We have thoroughly enjoyed our association with Governor Palin. We wish her the best in her future endeavors.”
I seriously doubt that we’ve heard the last of Sarah Palin. Personally, I would like to see her run for the Senate. But even if she retires from the spotlight she has done pretty well for herself and her family in the last four years.
Meanwhile, the usual suspects are celebrating prematurely again.
Tina Fey and Amy Poehler did a short Palin skit tonight as they talked about the Golden Globe nominations for “Game Change.” Fey said, “I bet if the Governor were here she would say ‘You betcha!’”
Is there anything sadder than two aging hipsters trying desperately to cling to relevancy?
If there was a major award to be won for her role as Sarah Palin in the HBO movie “Game Change” — about Palin’s role in the 2008 presidential election — Julianne Moore has now officially won them all.
Moore won the Best Actress Golden Globe for Best Performance in a Miniseries or Television Film Sunday night, adding to a round-up of statues that includes the Outstanding Lead Actress in a Miniseries or a Movie Emmy, and Best Movie/Miniseries Actress honors at the Critics’ Choice Television Awards, as well as a Best Miniseries or Television Film Golden Globe and Outstanding Miniseries or Movie Emmy for the film.
“This was one of my favorite jobs ever,” Moore said in her acceptance speech. “And I’d like to give a shout out to two people who I think made a significant difference in the 2008 election, Tina Fey and Katie Couric.”
In fact, “Game Change” — which debuted on HBO on March 10, 2012 — has been one of the biggest awards show success stories of the last year, winning a total of five Emmys and three Golden Globes for a movie that was based on a book of the same name by political journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.
Funny, but I don’t see a People’s Choice Award on that list. As a matter of fact I don’t recall seeing the DVD for sale or rent anywhere. That’s probably because it didn’t do well in the Neilsen ratings. In other words, unlike Sarah Palin’s Alaska on NatGeo the movie was a commercial flop.
Sarah Palin ran for vice president in 2008. In 2009 she resigned. It’s now 2013.
Some people need to get a grip and get over themselves. Hollywood and the Lamestream Media are seriously out of touch with the rest of us.
When Palin took to the makeshift stage in the middle of a Missouri farm field, she was dressed more for the part of Hollywood celebrity than serious politician. I know someone’s going to remind me that just last week, I said it was sexist to focus on the wardrobes of women in politics.
But it was hard for me to take Palin seriously dressed as she was.
First, her shoes: Five-inch wedges. Her black capris weren’t quite skin-tight but tight enough, and her t-shirt with its Superman logo (a Steelman campaign shirt emblazoned with “Our freedom. Our fight.”) emphasized her figure. She never once removed her oversized sunglasses.
I’m sorry, but I’d like my minister, my doctor and yes, my politicians, to look and dress for their parts.
Even when they know they’re wrong they still can’t help themselves. This wasn’t exactly a formal event:
Palin was in the Kansas City area to campaign for Sarah Steelman, who’s in a tight three-way race in Tuesday’s Republican primary for Missouri’s U.S. Senate seat. The winner will face Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) in November.
The Steelman Surge BBQ and Picnic featured speeches by Steelman and Palin, followed with Kansas City barbecue served up by the two women to a crowd estimated at 500 or more, many of whom waited an hour or longer.
What would you wear to a BBQ? A tuxedo? A hoop skirt and petticoats? It was casual Friday fer Christ’s sake.
One of these days the media is gonna figure out that Sarah is not gonna play by their rules.
Tune in later to see if Sarah goes 5-0 with her endorsements this year.
“I’m doing a terrible job disciplining Tripp,” Bristol Palin admits on her Lifetime reality show Life’s a Tripp. And yes, giggling when your toddler calls his aunt a “faggot” is probably not a great way to let him know that’s not a nice word.
Look, kids say the darndest things, and it’s kind of funny when a child curses. But there’s a difference between a precocious utterance of “fuck” and a homophobic slur. The complete lack of shame is especially embarrassing given that there were cameras filming it all — gay-friendly Lifetime cameras, no less.
Hmm, I wonder where Tripp learned to use “faggot” as an insult.
[...]
UPDATE:
Life’s a Tripp showrunner Matt Lutz wrote in to say that Tripp’s bleeped expletive was “fuck” and not “faggot.” Lutz says that he was in the room at the time, and that he has reviewed the raw footage several times.
My dear sweet daughter was only two when she learned that word. Her mother was running late for school and was taking our daughter to the sitter when she got stopped by a train. Under her breath (she thought) my ex-wife uttered a choice expletive. From the back seat, clear as a bell came the words “fucking train”.
All parents know what it’s like when your children are learning to talk. You spend weeks on “Da-da” and “Ma-ma.” Then you slowly start adding to the vocabulary. It generally takes a lot of repetition before a child masters a word. Generally.
Some words they master on the first try. “Fuck” seems to be one of those words. And once they master it they proudly show everybody.
My daughter spent the rest of that day proudly saying “fucking train” to everyone she encountered, including the sitter, the parents of the sitter’s other kids, the other kids, the mailman and the clerk at the grocery store.
That was many years ago. My daughter now has a daughter of her own, and three year-old little Katie is proud of her vocabulary too.
BTW – The word was bleeped out. Why did the Palinhaters assume the word was “faggot?” Was it because the decided “fuck” wouldn’t be offensive enough to make it a story?
The 2008 presidential race was one of the most watched, discussed and analyzed campaigns in U.S. history, and when it came to the vice presidential candidates, voters heard a great deal about Sarah Palin.
Much more, in fact, than they heard about her opponent, Joe Biden.
News coverage of Palin, then the Republican governor of Alaska, not only significantly outweighed that received by Biden, then a U.S. senator from Delaware, was markedly different in substance and across media, according to a new study of media coverage of the vice presidential candidates.
Coverage of Palin was more likely to include references to her family, physical appearance and social issues, particularly in newspapers and by political blogs, while coverage of Biden dealt more with foreign policy and the economy.
Actually, Sarah Palin got more negative coverage than Joe Biden, John McCain and Barack Obama combined. Those last couple of months you would have thought it was Palin-McCain, not McCain-Palin.
But it is nice to see that somebody finally got around to confirming what we already knew.
When we last heard from Sarah Palin she was anointing state Treasurer Richard Mourdock over incumbent Senator Dick Lugar in Indiana’s GOP Senate primary that is being held today. In March Lugar had a comfortable lead. When Sarah gave Mourdock her blessing via Facebook two weeks ago it was a close race. More recent polls show Mourdock is now 10 points ahead.
Whether you like her or despise her you have to admit she makes an impact. But to hear some people tell it she’s the worst thing since New Coke:
Winston Churchill said “history is written by the victors.” But too often in politics, where professional tacticians want to preserve their permanent paychecks by deflecting their mistakes onto everyone but themselves, losers often desperately attempt to re-write history.
And that is exactly what GOP establishment operatives, aided and abetted by members of the mainstream media who want to preserve access to them, are now doing to the history of the 2008 presidential campaign, as they attempt to blame Palin–and, by association, non-establishment grassroots conservatives–for their own professional malpractice during that campaign.
[...]
The implication is that McCain lost the 2008 election because of Palin–that Palin was not qualified to be president and had no record of accomplishments. That narrative might help the résumés of the McCain handlers who mismanaged her, most notably Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace. However, it ignores certain key facts, such as how Palin enabled McCain to temporarily take the lead in the 2008 campaign, Palin’s record of reform as Alaska’s governor, and Steve Schmidt’s mismanagement of the McCain campaign — especially his failure and/or refusal to fully vet candidate Obama.
[...]
So how did this impression turn into its current establishment consensus?
[...]
POLITICO reported on a memo, “Shield Steve Schmidt From McCain Blame,” put together in the waning days of the 2008 presidential campaign by associates of Schmidt to absolve him of campaign mismanagement. The memo lays out a strategy to shape conventional wisdom by targeting mainstream journalists and Republican talking heads and to blitz the media landscape with friendly talking points that would make it seem like even Ronald Reagan could not have won in 2008.
The obvious purpose was to absolve the professional operatives of all blame, allowing them to get hired again and sell their “snake oil” magic to the next politician. The quid pro quo was simple: we give you exclusive “gossip” and minutiae and you get exclusive reporting and access.
It’s a longish article and fairly detailed. I’m not going to republish it here but it lays out a persuasive case against Steve Schmidt and his cronies. I recommend you read it. It does kind of skip over the role of Karl Rove and the GOP Establishment. They hate Sarah Palin almost as much as the Obots do and for good reason – she is a threat to them and their schemes.
I always get a kick out of the meme that Sarah Palin cost John McCain the election. If it were true it would mean that but for his decision to pick her as his VP nominee, McCain would have won. That idea is absurd.
It was pretty clear at least as far back as November 2006 that the Democrats were going to retake the White House in 2008. John McCain has never been popular with the GOP Establishment. He was allowed to win the nomination only because someone had to “take one for the team.”
Do you think that Wall Street would have spent millions in 2007 to jump-start Barack Obama’s campaign if it looked like the GOP had a chance to win? The decided that if a Democrat was going to win, they would pick the Democrat. That investment paid off very well for them.
In the six months leading up to the election, John McCain led in the polling for only two weeks. Those two weeks were the ones immediately following the GOP convention where Sarah Palin was the star. During the general campaign Sarah drew bigger, more energized crowds than McCain could muster. One of the reasons that Mitt Romney would never pick her as his running mate is that she would upstage him no matter what she did. She’s the “it” girl.
I do have to object to one thing in the article. It is ironic that an essay intended to set the record straight makes such a glaring factual error:
On June 3, 2008, when the general election campaign essentially began, then-Senator Obama would speak in Minnesota while McCain would speak in Louisiana. On that day, Obama won enough delegates to officially become the Democratic nominee, after a long slog of a primary against Hillary Clinton, and he could finally pivot toward the general election.
On June 3, 2008 neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama had won enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee. Hillary had more votes, but thanks to the Rules and Bylaws Committee decision on May 31st Obama had a slight lead in pledged delegates. It was the super delegates that chose Obama as the nominee. Let me repeat that:
IT WAS THE SUPER DELEGATES THAT CHOSE OBAMA AS THE NOMINEE!
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she has no desire to make another run for the White House but hopes to see an American woman president in her lifetime.
As you can see, Bashir calls Romney “Mitt the Mendacious” three times. The crudeness of Bashir’s rhetorical method is enough to make Allahpundit pine for “the relative subtlety and understated good taste of Keith Olbermann.” Bashir also reminds MSNBC viewers that on Wednesday, he interviewed Pastor Robert Jeffress, the Southern Baptist who endorsed Romney despite Jeffress’s continued insistence that Mormonism is a heretical cult.
What Bashir is doing is something I explained two weeks ago: Using evangelicals as a “hook” to bring up Romney’s Mormonism. This is a familiar theme that mainstream reporters have been working on ever since the 2008 campaign. The supposed anti-Mormon prejudices of evangelical Christians that were much talked about in terms of Romney’s difficulties in GOP primaries will now be reinterpreted as an excuse to talk about Mitt’s Mormonism for the general election campaign.
It’s a great two-birds-with-one-stone-stone trick for liberals: “Look how bigoted these holy rollers are and — hey, by the way — did you notice that Romney’s religion is kinda weird and has a history of polygamy, violence and racism? Also, coming up next, we have an exclusive interview with an ex-Mormon woman who has written a book that says the church is horribly sexist . . .”
The Other McCain is a flaming wingnut so take what he says with a grain of salt, but he has a valid point. When was the last time you saw a bloviating gasbag quoting the Bible to compare a professed Christian politician’s actions or statements to his/her religious beliefs?
Obama supporters claim they are just pointing out hypocrisy, but in 2008 it was considered taboo (and racist) to ask Obama about his religion or the sermons of his spiritual mentor, but it was open season as far as speculating on Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs and her alleged connection to Dominionism and a shadowy cult called “Joel’s Army.
During the ’08 campaign, the same media that reported breathlessly about an old used tanning bed I purchased to get some sun during the dark Alaskan winter, couldn’t be bothered to investigate Barack Obama’s associations, statements or even his voting record as a state senator. Suntans and what I wore on the campaign trail were more important than Obama’s political background. Unbelievable.
But when you come to think of it, the media didn’t investigate either of our actual political records very closely.
Barack Obama and I both served in political office in states with a serious corruption problem. Though there is a big difference between serving as the CEO of a city, then a state, and regulating domestic energy resources, and being a liberal Community Organizer, bear with me on the comparison. The difference between my record and Barack Obama’s is that I fought the corrupt political machine my entire career (and I have twenty years of scars to prove it) on the local, state, and national level. But Obama didn’t fight the corruption he encountered. He went along with it to advance his career. Graft, cronyism, and quid pro quo are the methods of the Chicago political machine from which he emerged.
You would think the media – those watchdogs of the public trust – would be interested in this. But they refused to vet Barack Obama. With tingles up their legs, they shielded him.
If the media had done their job of vetting him, we wouldn’t have been shocked that within days after Obama’s election, his close political associate Rod Blagojevich was caught trying to sell Obama’s vacant Senate seat.
If the media had done their job of vetting him, we wouldn’t be astonished to see all the billion dollar green energy kickbacks going to his campaign cronies as the nation heads towards bankruptcy.
If the media had done their job of vetting him, we wouldn’t be surprised that Obama brought these same Chicago “pay-to-play” practices to the White House.
One of the most amazing things about 2008 was seeing Obots claiming with straight faces that Sarah Palin wasn’t qualified to be President.
One massive marketing and GOP-undies-bunching campaign later, the unveiling of HBO’s Sarah Palin flick, “Game Change,”attracted 2.123 million viewers Saturday night at 9. HBO says that is its biggest original-movie opening crowd in about eight years.
To put the audience in perspective, that’s slightly fewer people than sat down the next afternoon at 2 to watch a rerun episode of History’s “Pawn Stars” (2.129 million viewers).
HBO’s anti-Sarah Palin film “Game Change” scored some pretty impressive ratings over the weekend – 2.1 million viewers, according to numbers released today.
But while the cable network may be tempted to spike the football, it might want to do some digging on some other Palin-related data first.
TLC’s “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” debuted in 2010 to five million viewers, more than double the HBO figure. Now, TLC isn’t a pay channel like HBO, but the tally still undermines the narrative that audiences were clamoring to see a Palin takedown.
Plus, while HBO’s film got almost universally glowing reviews and all the media attention a title could muster, the TLC reality show debuted on a much less well known outlet sans universally positive press.
Even when one adds up the three “Game Change” airings on Saturday it still only comes to 3.6 million viewers, far less than the number of folks who caught Palin basking in her beloved Alaska two years ago.
That’s strange, I thought the viewers of the Bill Maher network liked fairy tales.
If you want to hear the stories of the people who were really there with Sarah, read this:
Former McCain senior campaign strategist Steve Schmidt sat down with MSNBC’s Morning Joe Monday morning and spoke candidly about his role in the 2008 presidential campaign, saying HBO’s Game Change was largely true.
“I think it was very accurate,” Schmidt acknowledged. “For all of us in the campaign, it really rang true. It gave you a little bit of PTSD at times. It did for me.But, look, I think it’s a story of when cynicism and idealism collide. When you have to do things necessary to win, to try to get in office to do the great things you want to do for the country and I think it showed a process of vetting that was debilitated by secrecy, that was compartmentalized, that failed, that led to a result that was reckless for the country and I think when you look back at that race, you see this person who is just so phenomenally talented at so many levels, an ability to connect but also someone who had a lot of flaws as someone running, you know, to be in the national command authority who clearly wasn’t prepared.”
[...]
“Politically, she was a net positive to the campaign,” Schmidt observed. “John McCain lost that race because the global economy imploded in the middle of September, and we were outspent by $250 million. I think a net negative in the sense that someone was nominated to the vice presidency who was manifestly unprepared to take the oath of office should it become necessary. And as it has become necessary many times in America.”
[...]
“Well, I was part of a team that settled on the result, you know. I didn’t wake up one day and say ‘let’s pick her,’” Schmidt explained. “But there’s a scene in the movie where I’m saying to Senator McCain — it’s almost verbatim– the conversation that happened, saying I would rather lose by ten points than lose by one point saying, ‘did we do everything we can to win?’ And for me, the experience on this campaign is that there are worse things than losing.”
[...]
“When a result happens that puts someone who is not prepared to be president on the ticket, that’s a bad result,” Schmidt added. “I think the notion of Sarah Palin being President of the United States is something that frightens me, frankly. And I played a part in that. And played a part in that because we were fueled by ambition to win. And I think that ambition to win, to victory is what drives people in politics. It is a chess match in a lot of ways, but that result in how we got there is something that troubles me a lot.”
Steve Schmidt is a political campaign consultant. Or rather, he was. It’s doubtful anyone would trust him now. Along with Nicolle Wallace he is responsible for most or all the negative stories about Sarah Palin portrayed in the book Game Change and the movie of the same name. In most professions it is considered unethical to kiss and tell about your clients.
As we all know, McCain-Palin lost the election. In the weeks and months that followed the election Schmidt and Wallace did something unheard of – they began leaking information to the media blaming the loss on Sarah. They may have hoped to remain anonymous but it soon became clear who the sources were.
The original version was that Sarah was the reason McCain lost. The problem with that story was it didn’t fit the narrative of “Obama the unbeatable.” It didn’t fit the facts either.
The current version is that Sarah shook up the race but that she was/is unqualified to hold the office. At least that’s progress.
No one, including Sarah, has ever claimed that in the fall of 2008 she had all the training and experience necessary to hold the office of President. But she wasn’t running for that job, she was running for Vice President.
As a council member and Mayor of Wasilla she didn’t have to deal with the issue of Israel and Palestine. As Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission she didn’t have to deal with NATO and the former Soviet Union. As Governor of Alaska she didn’t need to know about the finer points of the dispute between India and Pakistan.
She was a full time governor and in her spare time she was a wife and mother. That would keep anybody busy. So when exactly was she supposed to become an expert in foreign policy?
But ignorance and inexperience can easily be cured. Let’s assume for the moment that John McCain had won the election. What would Sarah have been doing the past three years?
She would have been attending a lot of briefings. She would have been reading stacks of information about every issue under the sun, foreign and domestic. She would have been heavily involved in negotiations with Congress and Cabinet discussions. She would have been gaining knowledge and experience.
While Sarah hasn’t increased her level of experience in the last three years she definitely has raised her knowledge level. Speeches and papers could easily be ghost-written, but if you take the time to listen to her in interviews it is obvious that she is well-informed on a wide variety of issues.
Which brings us to the last smear originating from Schmidt and Wallace. If you were to believe them then Sarah Palin is emotionally unfit to lead. But all the evidence to support this comes from just two sources – Schmidt and Wallace. And they won’t even make those allegations publicly.
I’m guessing that Schmidt and Wallace will be joining Dick Morris and Ed Rollins as members of the dolchstoß media. As long as Sarah has a career, so will they.
The prospect of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008 was “pretty terrifying” to actress Julianne Moore, who plays Palin in HBO’s upcoming Game Change movie about the 2008 campaign, but not because she feared Palin’s policies. Instead, the self-described “longtime liberal” dreaded Palin might allow the GOP ticket to win: “I really felt like, ‘Oh my gosh, the Republicans might have this election’” since “she was so electrifying.”
[...]
Moore explained how she recognized Palin’s political appeal:
Here’s a woman who’s a parent, who’s an actual working mother, who worked her way up from local government, who was definitely middle working class, married to a commercial fisherman….She was incredibly relatable, she was attractive, she was young; she was speaking to a wide portion of the population that didn’t feel that they’d been noticed or seen or heard.
[...]
“I would say, as a registered Democrat and longtime liberal, I think that I speak for a lot of women when I say that when [Palin] burst onto the scene, the way that she did that was pretty terrifying because I really felt like, Oh my gosh, the Republicans might have this election,” Moore recalled of her first perceptions of Palin back in 2008. “She was so electrifying as a figure, it kind of blew everyone away.”
At last, some honesty.
The freak-out over Sarah Palin began within hours of the announcement that she had been selected as John McCain’s running mate. All the supposed reasons for the freak-out came later.
Is it just me or has the media been kinder to Sarah the past few months? Now that she’s no longer a potential candidate for this cycle they have no vested interest in tearing her down.
If (when) Mittrick Romneysantorum loses to Obama in November, will that make Sarah the front runner for 2016?
Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime is a book by political journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin about the 2008 United States presidential election.[1] Released on January 11, 2010,[2] it was also published in the United Kingdom under the title Race of a Lifetime: How Obama Won the White House.[3] The book is based on interviews with more than 300 people involved in the campaign.[4] It discusses factors including Democratic Party presidential candidate John Edwards’s extramarital affair, the relationship between Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and his vice presidential running mate Joe Biden, failure of Republican Party candidate Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign and Sarah Palin’s vice presidential candidacy.[1][4][5][6]
The book is divided into three parts. Part 1 consists of the first fourteen chapters and is about the Democratic primary race between Obama and Clinton as well as the Edwards affair. Part 2 covers the next three chapters and is about the Republican primary race. Part 3′s final six chapters describe the fall campaign between Obama and John McCain.
The book is 23 chapters long and is supposed to be the story of how Barack Obama became president. The movie is a couple hours long and is all about Sarah Palin. The movie credits don’t even list someone playing Obama, but they do list someone playing Sarah’s stylist.
Moore plays the former governor of Alaska in the upcoming HBO film “Game Change,” which chronicles the ups and downs of then-GOP presidential nominee John McCain’s 2008 campaign for president. Based on the book by journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, the film is less than flattering to Palin, who is seen flailing and rebelling against those running the campaign.
“We have her displaying moments of sheer brilliance –- I mean, she was unbelievably charismatic,” Moore said earlier in January about the film’s portrayal of Palin. “Suddenly here was this working class mother who popped out and seemed to be able to command the world, but of course upon further inspection, she was clearly not prepared. She didn’t necessarily have the experience necessary to lead our country, and that’s what we were attempting to characterize.”
Of course the key moments of that characterization are based on the word of a couple of McCain staffers who have made something of a secondary career out of sliming Sarah. Let’s jump into the Wayback Machine for a few moments:
One of my favorite Thanksgiving memories was watching Keith Olbermann, Cenk Uglier and the other members of the PDS Brigades make total fools of themselves over the death of a couple turkeys.
Where did they think those things came from, the frozen food section of Whole Foods?
What are some of your favorite Thanksgiving memories?
(This is another one of those open thread thingies.)
So Sarah Palin went on Greta Van Susteren’s show last night and one of the “questions” was about what she thought of President Obama’s reference to America’s “Sputnik moment” during his State of the Union address.
Just about everyone knows that the phrase “Sputnik moment” refers to America’s response to the Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite and how it galvanized the nation to make the scientific and technological advantages that allowed us to go to the moon and beyond, but not Sarah Palin.
To Palin, the Sputnik moment was a bad thing for America and the fact that President Obama “would aspire Americans to celebrate” it represents a “WTF moment.” Why? Because, she says, Sputnik “resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union.”
I never thought she was stupid but I’m beginning to think Sarah Palin is a diabolical genius. With very little effort she manages to keep herself in the news while simultaneously employing a rope-a-dope strategery designed to wear out the Obots and destroy their credibility.
First of all, in Obotese the phrase “everybody knows” means “something I just learned.” Like when Sarah Palin said “blood libel” and every Obot in the country suddenly became experts on the history of Judaism.
One of the rules of comedy is “If you have to explain a joke it’s not funny.” If you have to explain to people what “blood libel” or a “Sputnik moment” means then it’s not a good example of how stupid someone allegedly is. Chances are they will simply tune out and move on. TLDR
If Sarah Palin said “The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor” most people wouldn’t need a history lesson to know why that statement is wrong. In this case Sarah was wrong but it’s not the kind of error that is likely to resonate with voters, especially since when she said it she was pointing out Obama’s “WTF moment.”
One of the left’s favorite criticisms of Sarah Palin is that she “doesn’t talk about the issues.” That criticism is bogus because she talks about issues in as much detail as any other politician not named Clinton.
