Bring It On!

What’s Really Wrong With Sarah?

September 10th, 2008 | by Windspike |

Given that ever since the GOP Convention, the McSame campaign has been keeping Palin under wraps says to me two things: 1) they are prepping her to meet the press, and 2) she’s got something really nasty to hide that she really needs the preparation. If she was really as remarkable a candidate as they say she is, she wouldn’t need the rehearsal. Really, that she hasn’t even stepped in for an interview with the right wing nuts at Fox News is saying something. What is it that they are hiding from us? It looks an awful lot like they are trying to get their stories straight so that she looks less culpable in the police line up.

Palin, Davis said, “will do interviews, but she’ll do them on the terms and conditions” dictated by McCain’s campaign — which is to say, according to a standard that applies to no other candidate for office anywhere in the country.

When you can’t even go to answer questions straight up, this says to me that you are prepping for the lies because if you simply stick to the truths, you wouldn’t need all the preparation and rehearsal to synch up the stories.

Perhaps the “liberal” media should exert some chutzpah of their own and boycott any kind of interview and “news” events at which Palin is at. Really, the Palin/McSame modus operandi does not lend itself to the exercise of a free press, upon which some Revolutionaries fought for our right to have. It demonstrates a complete disdain for the free press and a real need to control the message. And you thought you lived in a free country.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 21 Responses to “What’s Really Wrong With Sarah?”

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 10, 2008 | Reply

    To me it says nothing more than what we already know and all acknowledge: that she’s very well versed on State-level issues and light on national and international issues and she’s going to need some time to get up to speed. Since everyone knows this, it doesn’t seem to me necessary to posit that anyone one is trying to hide anything.

    But I do think it’s ballsy that her first interview with a journalist will be on ABC and NOT FNC.

    And the free press has made a complete hash so far in it’s “investigative journalism” roll. They’ve done more reading of DailyKos.com and Andrew Sullivan’s The Daily Dish at The Atlantic than serious journalism, consequently dishing up heaping helpings of steaming piles of lies and distortions that resemble pig shit more than objective journalism. Given the atmosphere of craziness that was the first week and a half after McCain announced his v-p pick, I don’t blame the McCain camp AT ALL for this.

    Furthermore, I’ve seen clips of Palin before reporters, in serious debating situations and campaign situations and from what I’ve seen, I think she’s the real deal. She consistently stands her ground, says what she thinks, defends her positions with wit, common-sense and just a hint of a smile on her face that says, “You, sir, are the mouse and I’m the cat and I’m about to make merry sport with you until I decide I’ve had enough play-time.” Anyone expecting Sarah Palin to wilt before her first reporter gaggle, hasn’t been paying attention at all. You don’t get a 80% approval rating as state governor by wilting, backing down or playing hide-n-seek with reporters. You do it by being confident, poised, well informed and witty, all of which, it seems to this observer, to be a rather good description of Sarah Palin.

  3. By Tom Harper on Sep 10, 2008 | Reply

    In a different article about this same thing, Rick Davis described Sarah Palin as “she’s not afraid to answer questions.”

    Whoa! Stand back. How’s that for a wicked soundbite.

    Sorry Craig, but she has no excuse for hiding and being kept under wraps this close to the election. If, like you said, she “consistently stands her ground, says what she thinks, defends her positions with wit, common-sense and just a hint of a smile on her face that says ‘You, sir, are the mouse and I’m the cat and I’m about to make merry sport with you until I decide I’ve had enough play-time’” — then when is she planning to do this?

    The election is less than 2 months away. What the F#$%!# is she waiting for?

  4. By christopher Radulich on Sep 10, 2008 | Reply

    Possibly knowning enough so she doesn’t have to answer I don’t know to every question.

  5. By Windspike on Sep 10, 2008 | Reply

    With all this self perpetuating celebrity going on with Sarah Palin, what happened to the McSame stance on celebrity and politics?

    I’m not expecting Palin to wilt, but I know for certain we are going to get the company line. No doubt, she will be drilled and drilled until she knows how to answer all the questions.

    So, as to if this “interview” on ABC will be a real interview, or another opportunity for the GOP to “message” the American people? I think it will be more of the former than the latter. In the end, if we don’t know something new about Palin and what she stands for and will do to actually change American politics for the better, then I will stand by my claim. It won’t be a level playing field because she’s being scripted as we type away. In essence, the GOP are looking at it at any other opportunity to spew the usual propaganda.

  6. By manapp99 on Sep 10, 2008 | Reply

    “In essence, the GOP are looking at it at any other opportunity to spew the usual propaganda.”

    As if an interview with Joe Biden is NOT an opportunity to spew the usual propaganda?

    This is how political campaigns are run Wind, the is not new to Sarah or to this election.

    The interesting thing is that the Obama camp has fallen for the bait to attack the VEEP candidate which leaves McCain untouched and above the fray.

    They attacks on Palin have clearly worked in favor of the GOP and has taken attention away from Obamas message and allowed McCain to remain above the fray and on message. Yet the left just keeps coming with more:

    “South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

    snip:

    “UPDATE — Carol Fowler releases a statement of apology: “I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make everyday, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive. I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue. Whether it’s the environment, the economy, the war or a woman’s right to choose, there are people who will cast their vote based on a single issue. That was the only point I was attempting to make”

    The statement will get lots of play and the apology will mean nothing. This will only help McCain more.

    The left is so full of hate that they just can’t help themselves and by showing how hateful they can be with Sarah Palin they are hurting their own candidate.

  7. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 10, 2008 | Reply

    Tom,

    When when is she planning to do this?

    I don’t know but I know there’s a deal in the works with ABC, possibly for next week but I don’t know that anything’s been finalized, at least as of last night.

  8. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 10, 2008 | Reply

    Hey, Windspike, McCain had nothing to do with making Sarah Palin a celebrity. The media and bloggers did that all by their lonesome by unleashing a week and a half of vicious rumor-mongering and lies and half-truths, most of which were refuted easily and quickly. Nothing that McCain could have possibly done could have raised Americans’ awareness and interest in Sarah Palin from her near unknown status to the point where, less than a week later, very nearly as many Americans tuned in to listen to Sarah speak from the Convention floor as tuned in to hear Obama speak from his faux Greek temple. If you want to know who’s responsible for making Sarah a celebrity, look in the mirror, Windspike. You and your liberal compatriots made her who she is today.

    Don’t blame McCain. He selected a virtual unknown. A nobody. It’s not his fault the liberal blogosphere and the media spewed a seemingly endless number of lies about her. Y’all should have shrugged your shoulders and said, “Uh…okay…now let’s go win this thing on the merits of our platform.” Instead we got a campaign of personal destruction that failed more miserably than any such campaign I’ve ever seen.

    At this point, there’s nothing McCain COULD do about Palin’s celebrity status. America has seen the future and she is Sarah Palin!

  9. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    She’s being scripted as we speak? Jesus, Windspike, you mean you don’t think Obama and Biden are scripted? What, you think they just come up with their answers off the top of their heads when a reporter asks them? That they don’t drill and drill with their advisors, their pollsters, that they don’t vet phrases before people to see how they react looking for sound-bytes? Come on man. You’re a grown-up. You’ve been around long enough to know how this works.

    Want to know why they do it? Because when they don’t, something like “I actually voted for the $84 billion before I voted against it” comes out of their mouths and they spend the next month living it down. Or they say that working class people from Pennsylvania “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations” because they are in what they think is a closed fundraiser with rich, elite East-coasters so they think they can say what they really think of the poor schleps who live in fly-over country.

    And Sarah Palin is no neophyte. She actually has a lot on the record from long before probably even McCain had ever heard of Sarah Palin and they are certifiably reformist, pro-life, and conservative so the idea that she is at the moment a tabula rasa upon which the McCain camp must write talking points is absurd. She needs to be acquainted with issues that she’s not had to deal with as a mayor and a governor, not an ignorant tape recorder who will play back the party line. She’s already a Republican (continuously since 1983) and a conservative. She already IS the party line.

    At least that’s the way it looks to me.

  10. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    And while people around here ask what’s wrong with Sarah Palin, I gotta ask, “What’s wrong with Barack Obama?”

    All I can say is, if this is the way Sarah Palin turns attacks against her into even more effective attacks against the top guy on the opposition’s ticket, there ain’t nothin’ wrong with Sarah Palin.

    That’s not to say I think yet that Sarah Palin was the right pick for McCain’s v-p from the standpoint of being an acceptable choice to maybe have to stand in for McCain as president and I understand that the town of Wasilla is virtually being flooded by reporters and opposition researchers who might still turn up damning info on Palin and there’s still that outstanding corruption investigation that could blow up Palin’s and McCain’s faces so there’s no way this thing is over.

    It does look, more and more though, as though Sarah Palin was the perfect pick from the standpoint of election politics:

    It took Obama’s convention right out of the collective consciousness of the American people.

    It put the Obama campaign on the ropes, flailing at air in some attempt to land a punch against Sarah Palin when they should have been concentrating on McCain and his policies.

    It started a perfect storm of rage and disbelief from the left that started a hurricane of stupidity passing for “the vetting of Sarah Palin that John McCain didn’t do”, most of it lies and the rest of it hypocritical whining that seems to have damaged Obama more than either Palin or McCain.

    It has brought independents and women into the McCain-Palin camp in droves and reversed polling trends that had gone Obama’s way for months, putting McCain-Palin either neck and neck or up and outside the margin of error, depending on which polls one believes.

    Barack Obama and his campaign had better figure out what’s really wrong with Barack Obama and his campaign if they hope to beat McCain-Palin this November. If they’re hoping for a Palin melt-down to pave their path to victory, I fear they’ll be very sorry folk come election day.

    The problem seems to be that, apparently, no one on the left side of the field knows how to do politics of personal destruction (with the exception of the Clintons and they seem strangely reluctant to act as Obama’s attack-dogs; I can not personally explain why; it’s a mystery to me) without it blowing up in their own faces.

    The solution as I see it: they’d better start talking substance fast and hope that Americans like their policies better than McCain’s because the basically contentless hopey-changey thing only goes so far and seems to have run its course and the last-week of attacks by Obama’s henchmen are like that bomb William Ayres and his wife, Ms. Dohrn, constructed to bomb a dance at a military base when Obama was only eight years old: it blew up within their own camp and the only casualties from it were “friendlies”.

  11. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    Damn, forgot the link. Here you go!

    Good-night, all!

  12. By Paul Watson on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    Craig or manapp,
    Care to answer the point about why she needs special rules about the interview? I mean, if she really is that “tell it like it is”, compentent and all, why does she need special protection from the evil journalists?

  13. By Chris Radulich on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    You mean lies like sara tells about her distaste for pork. She campaigned for the bridge and only removed state funding after congress killed federal funding. However she managed to keep the money. While mayor she hired a lobbiest to get as much pork out of congress as she could.

    Alaska has ranked number one in pork per citizen since at least 2000

    Alaska is the second highest recipient of federal funds. They also need charity from the lower 48

  14. By Chris Radulich on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    As for the Alaskan independence party, she did attend meetings. Guilt by association has been a major republican stance since Joe McCarthy. If Obama had attended a meeting of the communist party the republicans would be announcing it every 15 seconds.

  15. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    Paul,

    I think I already answered the question in two ways and I quote myself from my very first comment in this post:

    To me it says nothing more than what we already know and all acknowledge: that she’s very well versed on State-level issues and light on national and international issues and she’s going to need some time to get up to speed. Since everyone knows this, it doesn’t seem to me necessary to posit that anyone one is trying to hide anything.

    And then:

    And the free press has made a complete hash so far in it’s “investigative journalism” roll. They’ve done more reading of DailyKos.com and Andrew Sullivan’s The Daily Dish at The Atlantic than serious journalism, consequently dishing up heaping helpings of steaming piles of lies and distortions that resemble pig shit more than objective journalism. Given the atmosphere of craziness that was the first week and a half after McCain announced his v-p pick, I don’t blame the McCain camp AT ALL for this.

    Admittedly, it is the first reason that is the real reason while the second is the reason given by the McCain camp. I’m not sure what else you’re looking for by way of explanation.

  16. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    Chris,

    The Alaskan Independence Party is not the equivalent of the Communist party and not even all the members of the Party are members of the party because they’d like to see Alaska secede from the union. They are members because they’d like to see more independence from federal governmental interference in state issues and in their own lives. They are members because Alaskans tend to be very libertarian and the AIP is the most libertarian party available.

    So she’s attended meetings. She didn’t join. She didn’t support the group, so far as I have seen, with her pocket-book.

    Compare this to twenty years of membership in Trinity United Church of Christ regularly listening to Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons and supporting both with 20 years of offerings.

    Compare to making Wright an unofficial advisor to his campaign.

    THOSE are the comparisons that matter as I see it. In other words, Obama’s connection to TUCC and Rev. Wright are more damaging to Obama because they were much extensive, closer and significant than the slight connection with a group that is viewed as anything but a fringe group within Alaska.

    Furthermore, the AIP is the third largest political party, a party that has seen a member elected governor (not Palin, by the way) and another elected lt. governor. This is a mainstream party in Alaska.

    If you want to know why Obama was damaged by Wright in ways that Palin was not by AIP, those are the reasons.

  17. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    Chris,

    Which lies are those about Pork? Links to details please. I don’t know how to respond without details.

  18. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    Question to anyone: If Obama loses to McCain, will the reason at all be traceable to Obama’s decision NOT to name the second most popular candidate for President of the United States within his own party, Hillary Clinton, as his running mate in the Vice-President slot?

    Think about it: had Obama picked Hillary, McCain’s choice would have been viewed as a “me too” choice, of little interest instead of being a jaw-dropping and campaign upending choice. The Obama supporters would have had no need to go into destruction mode, self-destructing in the process, and Hillary would have jumped into the roll of attack-dog with relish because she wouldn’t have been dissed and her supporters would have been more likely to jump behind Obama-Clinton than Obama-Biden and would be less enticed by McCain-Palin.

    I’m not asserting these as facts, just wondering out loud.

    As it is, Hillary is a luke-warm campaigner for Obama at best who explicitly refuses to attack Sarah Palin and there seems to be a sizeable contingent of Hillary supporters who are not interested in voting for Obama, indeed, seem to be openly hostile to him.

  19. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    And, apparently, even Joe Biden thinks that Hillary might be more qualified to be v-p than he, Joe Biden, is. Heh! Anyone thinking Eagleton…not in respect to Sarah Palin but in respect to Joe Biden? I mean, suppose, just suppose that Sarah does well in the v-p debate, if the debate comes out being viewed as roughly even? At that point, Joe Biden’s foreign policy experience will have been neutralized and McCain Palin will be viewed as two well qualified candidates for President while Obama-Biden will be viewed as one candidate with little experience and one with lots, unfortunately, the one with lots of experience will be the number two on the ticket and the one viewed as having little experience will be the number one, the one who would be stepping into the White House on day one.

  20. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    Here’s a link to Biden’s You know, I may not have been the best pick for vice president moment.

  21. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    Who is this Peter Feld? He’s billed as a long-time Democratic strategist but is sounding like a Republican. Here’s one of his warnings to the Obama camp and his supporters in the msm and elsewhere: Liberals: “Facts” No Match For Sarah Palin.

  22. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    Here’s another pessimism-packed warning to Obama and friends: Panic, Democrats.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel