moonbattery.gif


« Corrupt Former Congressman Jefferson Gets Just Desserts, But Is America Better Off? | Main | Obamamania Explained -- and How to Defend Yourself »


November 15, 2009

More Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome

Posted by Gregory of Yardale at November 15, 2009 7:55 AM

Well, yesterday's post that mentioned Sarah Palin evoked the expected Pavlovian response from the lefty trolls, so let's see if we can provoke the attack chihuahuas into furious fits of yipping again.

Item Number One: Deranged Palin-Stalker Andrew Sullivan -- who developed a deranged obsession with the idea that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin's son -- Now claims it was *she* who was obsessed with *him.* Um, yeah, Andy, posting dozens of entries on your weblog promoting conspiracy theories about Sarah Palin definitely proves that she is stalking you.(AIDS-related dementia isn't pretty, kids. Please, don't be gay! And don't smoke, because, smoking is gay).

Item Number Two: Newsweek, the dying fringe-left publication with plummeting circulation has a new cover story timed to coincide with the release of Sarah Palin's best-selling memoirs, warning that Sarah Palin is a deadly threat to the GOP and a nation as a whole; mainly because she embodies and promotes traditional values of self-reliance, independence, and love for family that horrify the left-wing elites.

Item Number Three: MSDNC's Larry O'Donnell was all but literally frothing at the mouth as he denounced Palin's best-selling memoir as an "index and footnote free, score settling campaign memoir" possessing "[no] mind numbing charts or graphs, no big words, no scholarly Latin phrases, like caveat emptor."

If Sarah Palin is a joke, then why is the left-wing obsessed with destroying her? The right directs similar fury at Barack Obama, fair enough, but Obama is actually in power and making many bad decisions that actually affect our lives. Sarah Palin is a private citizen, with no power to rule over anyone. One can disagree with Palin's values, but it's not as if she's running up massive federal deficits or dithering over war strategy while our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan.

John Edwards is in many ways the left-wing's analog to Sarah Palin, being the VP candidate on a losing presidential ticket and now a private citizen. (Newsweek did a cover story on John Edwards, too, once. Compare and contrast.) Sure, the right made fun of John Edwards. How could you not? The ambulance-chasing pretty boy with the enormous ugly house who knocked up a "campaign aide" while his wife fought cancer; the guy's a walking punchline. But did the right-wing media engage in an all-out, scorched Earth war on John Edwards? Hardly, because when someone really is a self-evident joke, those tactics are not necessary.

edwards_breckgirls.jpg
Also, our jokes about John Edwards were a heck of a lot funnier

Comments

Self made beautiful conservative women always drive lefties mad. Like crucifix to a vampire.
I think it's funny when they get all frothed up. They're idiots.

Posted by: G at November 15, 2009 8:35 AM


Too bad for NEWSREEK their losing readers becuase no one wants to read their left-wing liberal lie a week rag anymore and SLIME is also losing readers

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at November 15, 2009 8:37 AM


Our circulation is not plummeting. Our appeal has just become more selective in accordance with our business plan:

1. Become a thin, expensive, propaganda organ for the Obama White House.
2. ???
3. Profit

Posted by: Newsweek at November 15, 2009 8:42 AM


Like all lefty plans - It's not working. NEWSWEEK NOMES = FAIL LOL ;-)


The left are SO afraid of this woman, WHY, because she represents TRUTH. Oh how the left hate TRUTH.

Posted by: TED at November 15, 2009 8:50 AM


Posted by: TED at November 15, 2009 8:58 AM


Let's see what the "deranged" public thinks.

Here's a graph of a compilation of polls.

Palin National Favorable Rating

Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2009 9:03 AM


Scaring liberals for years


I love this old cartoon!! ;-)

Posted by: TED at November 15, 2009 9:07 AM


Oops, I posted that Palin poll.

Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2009 9:07 AM


"Palin National Favorable Rating" forgot the "among liberals everywhere" part toad.

Posted by: TED at November 15, 2009 9:09 AM


TED I love how you claim at 8:50 "Oh how the left hate TRUTH."

Time to wake up. Look at the poll and you will see that Fox polled her unfavorable rating at 51%. The compilation puts her unfavorables at 51.5%.

Hate the truth?

Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2009 9:12 AM


And, as predicted, the trolls can't resist adding more slams to a post on Sarah Palin. I wonder if anyone has polled the public on the question, "Do you despise Sarah Palin with every fiber of your being and wish her nothing but the worst?" Then, we would see if public opinion really synched with that of the media.

Posted by: Ivan Pavlov at November 15, 2009 9:24 AM


bur Sarah is not in office nor is she currently running for office

now Obama who is in office has a large unfavorable rating - please explain that

a total disapprove of 49%
& strongly disapprove of 39%


click my name for link

Posted by: blue at November 15, 2009 9:28 AM


Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! (pee on the floor) Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip!

Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2009 9:30 AM


Well I guess I am the "trolls" and I get that label for posting a poll and commenting on the information presented there. That's considered "adding more slams".

Reality = derangement around here.

Fox polled Palin's disapproval rating at 51%. You have a problem with Fox being too liberal?

Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2009 9:30 AM


Burt - (again) - Sarah is not in office or currently running for office so the poll is means nothing.


Please explain Obama's negative numbers...which are about the same as Sarah's......

Posted by: blue at November 15, 2009 9:32 AM


yea - which would you rather be?
1) a private citizen with a 50% negative rating
2) a sitting president with a 50% negative rating

I'll take 1)

Posted by: Sarah at November 15, 2009 9:35 AM


Using the same polling group that I did for Palin, Obama's National Job Approval stands at 51% and has been there since mid August.

Obama Job Approval

Fox put approval at 50%, disapproval at 41%.

Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2009 9:35 AM


And she's making millions $$$$ to boot. So poll numbers mean nothing.

Posted by: G at November 15, 2009 9:38 AM


Why are we supposed to care about Sarah Palin's approval ratings? She's not running for anything.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 15, 2009 9:50 AM


so why is a sitting president so unpopular????

and why do you care what a private citizens poll numbers are?


Posted by: blue at November 15, 2009 9:52 AM


And why is there a poll for a private citizen?

Posted by: G at November 15, 2009 9:56 AM


"Why is a sitting President so unpopular?" you ask.

Take a look at this poll and then you tell me.

Bush Job Approval

He was below 50% and falling for four years. Fox put his numbers at 29% approve 67% disapprove. Obama has a tough race to catch up.

Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2009 10:00 AM


Consider also this... favorable/unfavorable ratings roughly equal for both Palin and Chairman Zero...


...and this is with a MSM that is simultaneously a Palin-bashing attack dog AND a shameless fluffer for Obama. If the media really were "neutral and objective", any idea where those numbers might be?

Posted by: hiram at November 15, 2009 10:01 AM


Excellent.The "But Bush!!!" Defense again.
Too funny.

Posted by: G at November 15, 2009 10:03 AM


yes Bush was unpopular & helped McCain lose the election. This is a fact.


Now Obama being unpopular will help him lose a 2nd term...speculation but a reasonable forecast giving his unpopularity....

Posted by: blue at November 15, 2009 10:06 AM


No "but Bush". It's a legitimate comparison. Blue asked why a sitting President is so unpopular. Does a little perspective regarding "unpopular" bother you?

Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2009 10:06 AM


and could it be that he will lose to (gasp) ME?????

Posted by: Sarah at November 15, 2009 10:07 AM


Sarah is unpopular because the MSM & democrat party are so scared of her that they trash her every chance they get


now Obama, who gets the most favorable press coverage in history, is unpopular because????

Posted by: eat me at November 15, 2009 10:08 AM


"Does a little perspective regarding "unpopular" bother you?"

No not at all. It's losing its affect and Obama, MSN and Dems keep on using it, the electorate is tiring of it....So it's great!

Posted by: G at November 15, 2009 10:16 AM


Obama, who gets the most favorable press coverage in history, is unpopular because????

Because of Racism. Anyone who doesn't 100% approve and support everything our magnificent African-American leader does is a racist, redneck hillbilly!

Posted by: The MSM at November 15, 2009 10:18 AM


I'm reminded of this cartoon.

Cartoon

Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2009 10:22 AM


Question for right-wingers: Do any of you obsess over John Edwards's approval ratings the way Burt does over Sarah Palin's?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 15, 2009 10:31 AM


John Edwards, who?

Posted by: G at November 15, 2009 10:32 AM


You ask why a "private citizen" is being polled. Could it be because conservative media like Fox and Rush regularly promote her as a possible Republican Presidential candidate?

You can find polls on Romney and Huckabee too.

Do you have a problem that Fox conducted a poll on Sarah and noted her unfavorability at 51%?

Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2009 10:43 AM


The libs see Palin as a threat if she were to run for public office again. She "has to be destroyed". It's the game of politics of personal destruction with them.

However nothing negative can be said of "The Anointed One", Barack Hussein Obama, otherwise the left wing media, which used to be the gov's watchdog (now their lapdog) will crucify you.

Posted by: Atomic Lib Smasher at November 15, 2009 10:47 AM


No "but Bush". It's a legitimate comparison. Blue asked why a sitting President is so unpopular. Does a little perspective regarding "unpopular" bother you?

It is a "But Bush" knee jerk.

Explain why moonbats feel compelled to excuse each and every one of Obama's failings by citing George W. Bush.

Wasn't Obama going to be different? Wasn't he going to usher in Change you can believe in?

Furthermore, moonbats need to come to the realization that those on the right are not as beholden to their supposed leaders as the drones in the obedient collective of the left are.

Many of us dislike and are unhappy with Bush as well.

So any way you look at it, attempting to excuse Obama's folly by citing Bush is really just ridiculous.

Posted by: J at November 15, 2009 11:08 AM


As a side note, it's funny how the Palin posts here always seem to have the higher the moonbat comment counts.

Like moths to a flame...

Posted by: J at November 15, 2009 11:09 AM


"Like moths to a flame..."

And they always get burned.

Posted by: G at November 15, 2009 11:12 AM


The women I really like are Judy Garland, followed by Bette Midler.

Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2009 11:23 AM


Posted by: G at November 15, 2009 11:33 AM


RE:Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2009 9:30 AM

Burt with the Reynolds Wrap around his head misses the point with, "Fox polled Palin's disapproval rating at 51%. You have a problem with Fox being too liberal?"

Burt, Burt, Burt.....you still don't get it, do you?

Palin's falling numbers closely match the intensity of the smear campaign against her.

Down here in BidenLand, our local paper (the Wilmington News-Urinal) ran the AP "Fact Check" of her book this morning....and they ran it full page with pictures and no rebuttal or questions whatsoever.

No wonder her numbers amoong the marginally informed are falling - that's the point, moron.

Compare this with the current occupant of the White House. EVEN WITH his picture on the front page every other day, and fawning media support, the truth is starting to get out, and his popularity is falling like a rock.

That's why it is suprising that Barack Obama won by such a narrow margin in 2008 - with all the help he had, it should have been a landslide......but he could just barely pull it off even when the "fix" was in.....

Posted by: TonyD95B at November 15, 2009 11:57 AM


Let's see if I have this figured out.

Palin is polling so unpopular because her "falling numbers closely match the intensity of the smear campaign against her."

Obama is polling so unpopular despite "fawning media support, the truth is starting to get out, and his popularity is falling like a rock."

So on the one hand the public is utterly in the thrall of the media and express disapproval of Palin. On the other, they bravely ignore the media to express disapproval of Obama.

I'm glad that makes sense to you.

Re Obama's popularity "falling like a rock" see the graph Burt posted at 9:35. Obama's approval has remained steady for three months.

Posted by: robin at November 15, 2009 12:38 PM


Still a "nose dive" since Dec.and it ain't gone up for three months. Not very impressive.

Posted by: G at November 15, 2009 12:55 PM


looking at Burt's chart I see that
after falling from almost 70%, Obama is holding steady at 50% for 3 months. Now that is quite an accomplishment!!!

Posted by: blue at November 15, 2009 12:58 PM


What would really be interesting is to know how closely disapproval ratings match up with being informed or misinformed regarding facts about a person/office holder. Approval/disapproval means nothing if you disapprove of a person based on things that aren't true. That seems to be the case with most Palin haters. They think she's dirty because she's had so many lawsuits filed against her, even though they keep being dismissed as baseless.

Posted by: Judith M. at November 15, 2009 1:01 PM


some quotes that may explain the horrendous drop in Obama's popularity


"The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." - James
Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union

"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus

"A Liberal is a person who will give away
everything he doesn't own." - Unknown

Posted by: eat me at November 15, 2009 1:01 PM


Comrades, ponder this: at the same period in his Presidency, Jimmy Carter had higher numbers than Obama does now.

Nothing to worry about, I'm sure.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 15, 2009 1:28 PM


Couple points. Remember stories about Edwards's $400 haircuts? Guess who dropped that little nugget in the media's ear? Yup. John Edwards' $400 Haircut Tip Came From Obama Campaign.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 15, 2009 1:38 PM


RE: Posted by: robin at November 15, 2009 12:38 PM

Robin sounds puzzled while sqwawking, "Let's see if I have this figured out....on the one hand the public is utterly in the thrall of the media and express disapproval of Palin. On the other, they bravely ignore the media to express disapproval of Obama. I'm glad that makes sense to you."

Yes, it does. The two are not at odds, as your flawed logic would dictate.

The media has presented nothing but negatives about Sarah Palin, and the public is reacting accordingly.

They have a much bigger job offsetting Obama's shortcomings than coming up with seemingly believable smears about Palin, so even with an all-out effort, they can barely get it done.

Or is that concept too difficult for you to understand?

So much for Leftist Democrat Pseudoprogressive "Subtlety and Nuance".....

Posted by: TonyD95B at November 15, 2009 2:03 PM


"Approval/disapproval means nothing if you disapprove of a person based on things that aren't true."

That would apply to Obama just as much as Palin.

Posted by: robin at November 15, 2009 2:27 PM


Palin's treatment by the MSM always reminds me of that line in Princess Diana's Eulogy given by her brother at her funeral when he said..." I dont think she ever understood why her genuinely good intentions were sneered at by the media. Why there appeared to be a permanent quest on their behalf to bring her down. It is baffling. My own and ownly explanation is that genuine goodness is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum."

Posted by: Em at November 15, 2009 2:42 PM


Robin, of course that would apply to anyone, but... what is it about Sarah Palin that people disapprove, and is it really true? What is it about obama we disapprove that's false? See how that works?

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at November 15, 2009 2:47 PM


The "John Edwards vs. Sarah Palin" comparisan is not really an issue because aside from cracking jokes on Edwards there is really no great campaign to 'get him' like we see dealt to Sarah Palin. The woman was basically forced to resign from her office to protect her family and her state, since the bills from the bogus investigations were piling up at the taxpayers expense and it was both embarassing to her people as well as costly. Stepping down was the only honorable thing to do at this point and she handled it like a lady, she didn't attack people or go off on tirades about the people who were doing this to her, even though they would deserve it if she did.

Posted by: GoSarah at November 15, 2009 4:22 PM


"Approval/disapproval means nothing if you disapprove of a person based on things that aren't true."

That would apply to Obama just as much as Palin.

No argument there. The difference - small, but noticeable to the discerning eye - is that disapproval of Obama is based on things he's actually said ("redistribute the wealth," "ACORN will play a crucial role in shaping my Administration") and did (groveling to the Saudis and Japanese heads of state, offending Britain by gladhanding the Queen and giving her an iPod loaded with...his speeches (narcissist? Nah), turfing out the Churchill bust, and giving Gordon Brown DVDs (always tasteful) that won't play on a UK DVD player, selling out Poland and the Czech Republic, snogging with Hugo Chavez, running down America overseas, appointing tax cheats and communists to serve in his Administration), or failed to do (speak out strongly against Islamic terrorism after Fort Hood).

Now - each of those are true, are they not? If you disagree, please tell us which of those things is not absolutely 100% true.

Whereas you Reds quote Palin about seeing Russia from her house, which occurred only in Tina Fey sketch on Saturday Night Live. Totally comparable.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 15, 2009 4:37 PM


mmmmmmmm - Sarah Palin - droooooool

Posted by: Homer at November 15, 2009 5:45 PM


I just want Sarah to punish me while I'm wearing my assless chaps.

Posted by: Lao at November 15, 2009 6:13 PM


"Let's see if I have this figured out....on the one hand the public is utterly in the thrall of the media and express disapproval of Palin. On the other, they bravely ignore the media to express disapproval of Obama. I'm glad that makes sense to you."

Let me try to educate you, with the full recognition that that's like trying to teach quantum mechanics to a chimp.

Consider the media bias to be like a stiff wind from left (Obama) to right (Palin). Consider the public to be like a sailboat. Traveling with the wind, from left (Obama) to right (Palin), is easy. Traveling against the wind, from right (Palin) to left (Obama) is difficult. Does that help? Sorry, I don't have a picture book available for you.

The point is that the media present nauseatingly childish screeds about how wonderful Dear Leader is, not to mention his pecs, how toned his wife's arms are, and how she's the most beautiful woman in the world. (Srsly.) They ask him softball questions ("Can you tell us how wonderful you are? You can? Isn't that wonderful! You're so brilliant!). Anyone who can criticize the Messiah under those conditions is bucking the wind. The exact converse is the case with, well, any American, including Sarah Palin.

Apologies for any big words.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 15, 2009 6:16 PM


Sarah Palin video:

You can actually see Russia


Posted by: robin at November 15, 2009 7:43 PM


As a matter of fact, it is possible to see Russian territory from Alaskan territory, on a clear day. There's a pair of islands out there, one owned by each, that are well within visible range of each other. You can't from her house, though, which was in the SNL skit that the leftards have confused with reality. Oops, she knows what she's talking about again. Damn.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at November 15, 2009 7:59 PM


from here in Alaska

Can You Really See Russia From Alaska?

Answer: yes.

You've proved beyond any hope of redemption, that you're a moron, because the very clip you posted disproves your point. She didn't say "from her house;" she said from Alaska, and that's absolutely correct: there are parts of Alaska from which one can see Russia. (Irrelevant trivia, but correct.)

Meanwhile, the Mulatto Messiah claimed that his parents "got together" on a march in Selma, Alabama, and conceived him. That was a neat trick, since the march took place in 1965, while the Messiah was born in 1961. Similarly, the First Hood Rat claimed she sat on her father's lap and watched Carl Lewis in the Olympics. When Carl Lewis was in the Olympics, the First Wookie was 20 years old.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 15, 2009 8:12 PM


Jay, you do understand that Tina Fey was satirizing Palin's response in the video clip that I posted don't you?

The question to Palin was "What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?"

Palin was being asked a foreign policy question regarding Russia. "particularly in the last couple of weeks" referred to the Russia-Georgia conflict in South Ossetia that had recently concluded.

She heard the words "proximity of this state" and ran with that.

Posted by: robin at November 15, 2009 8:29 PM


Question: "You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?"

Palin Explains

Posted by: robin at November 15, 2009 8:37 PM


If Palin had commented about what to do regarding the Georgia situation she would have been way out of line, as would anyone asked that question who was not engaged with direct diplomatic relations with Russia. In fact, even a President who had been fully briefed on the situation would have to be extremely circumspect in answering that question because of the potential for a diplomatic disaster. I also note the clip editing looked very fishy. What came immediately after? Or don't they want us to see that?

Posted by: Judith M. at November 15, 2009 8:49 PM


Here's the interview with context both before and after.

Rose Interview

Posted by: robin at November 15, 2009 9:12 PM


BTW, that was the Gibson interview, not the Rose interview, robin, but it certainly gave a different perspective, didn't it? The most glaring thing that came to mind was that I've never seen a more antagonistic interview of a VP candidate. Second, if Obama had been treated in such a harsh manner, he would have been reduced to a quivering, babbling, bowl of Jello. And need I remind you that Obama was running for President, not VP?

Posted by: Judith M. at November 16, 2009 5:12 AM


The left cares so little about Sarah Palin that their trolls have driven this thread to almost 70 comments... on a Sunday. LOL.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 16, 2009 5:17 AM


Ooops, Gibson indeed, thanks Judith.

As for "never seen a more antagonistic interview" you are welcome to use that as an excuse for Palin's performance.

Couric and Palin

Was Couric antagonistic or did she ask a softball question that Palin couldn't answer?

Posted by: robin at November 16, 2009 9:47 AM


Palin couldn't have won no matter how she answered Couric's question. For one thing, Palin reads a lot of different news sources, she isn't going to be able to give a comprehensive list of them during an interview and whatever she did say would be twisted. I also note that if Couric asked Obama that question (and she never would because it was a trap question, and Palin knew it) and he had given a similar response, Couric would have nodded approvingly and later commented on how well read he was because he read EVERYTHING.

Posted by: Judith M. at November 16, 2009 10:44 AM


Oh come on Judith. How hard is it for a politician to respond to a softball question by saying something like "The New York Times, The Guardian and The Washington Post, are newspapers I check out fairly often. For magazines I like Rolling Stone, you betcha!"

Even if it wasn't true, an answer like that would have completely eliminated the huge liability of the answer she did give.

Posted by: robin at November 16, 2009 10:56 AM


It would have been a softball question for Obama, because Couric would have accepted his answer no matter what it was and nodded approvingly. With Palin she were out to get her. She wanted her to say something like "The National Review" or "Townhall" or one of the podunk papers in Alaska. Essentially anything she said would have been used against her. If she said she reads the NYTs, someone would have fed Couric something in her earpiece to ask Palin about what she thought about the article in section B on page 3. That's the way the press treated Palin while simultaneously showing absolutely no interest whatsoever in Obama's past accomplishments (or more accurately, lack thereof.)

Has it ever occurred to you how strange it is that Obama was supposedly a law professor for several years and NO ONE has ever come forward to say he or she took his class and what they thought of his teaching? I find that very bizarre, myself. The guy is a giant cipher and the press seems completely content with keeping it that way.

Posted by: Judith M. at November 16, 2009 11:04 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)