Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Palin critics suffer from fear factor
Source:
phillyburbs.com
URL Source: http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/new ... s-suffer-from-fear-factor.html
Published: Jul 5, 2010
Author: Dennis Miller
Post Date: 2010-07-06 00:15:38 by reaganisright
Keywords: moonbats, womenhaters, Libtards
Views: 267600
Comments: 430
The last presidential campaign, its election and each and every day since have crystallized the magic and malice of the national media. By working its magic, the media were able to keep Obama hidden in clear sight. His past was selectively chosen, his present was a manufactured eloquence of hope and change, his future was his transcendent ability to lead us to the land of milk and honey, and his gaffes were editorially retrofitted. The media took a virtual unknown and kept him unknown. This Camelot euphoria was interrupted by another unknown that stoked the malice of the media. Unexpectedly, a non-elite commoner caused a derangement syndrome with Obama and his media acolytes that came out of the clear blue; the source of their derangement ... Sarah Palin. The media launched a D-Day scale invasion of Alaska. Its mission was not to report, but to search and destroy. Every nook and cranny of Palin's life and anyone and everyone associated with her was scrutinized. Nothing was off limits: having five children was improper, her children's names were ridiculed, her fifth child was portrayed as her grandchild, and her everyday life was depicted as trailer trash. The universal talking point was the vice presidential candidate is not only barefoot and pregnant, Palin is dumb. Let's examine Palin's "dumbness." She more than held her own in the vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden. While campaigning, even with the cheap shots from a left-wing media wrapped in straightjackets of unchangeable political ideology, Palin's message and demeanor won the hearts and minds of more and more Americans. With a stronger running mate, the results may have been different. Now as a leader of the tea party movement, the media now suffer from another bout of derangement syndrome. Tea party members are touted as dumb, and Palin is dumb. Money or more precisely, lack of money is a major problem in all too many states. As governor, Palin had an opposite track record than her counterparts in bastions of liberalism such as New York, New Jersey, California and Massachusetts. These states are financially belly up and will be turning to Washington for, what else, a bailout. Yet Alaska is financially solvent. Its biggest concern is trying to keep Washington away. But the media spin is Alaska is a state of dummies and Palin is dumb. Advertisement Palin wrote a book that sold 2.2 million copies and, much to the New York Times' chagrin, was on its Bestseller List for 11 weeks. The Associated Press had eleven fact checkers dissect each word of her book and found nothing to stir up another personal assassination. Nancy Pelosi had a book published; it's sitting on the shelf of your local book store. Regardless of the incredible success of Palin's book, the media decision: Pelosi is smart, Palin's readers are dumb, and Palin is dumb. Who is Sarah Palin? Wife, mother, grandmother, soldier's mom, soccer mom, working mom, who believes in God, the Constitution, American uniqueness, sanctity of life, family values, school choice and low taxes. And because of this she is dumb. Maybe there just happens to be a whole lot of moms who believe in the same things. Women, who from the time they get up to the time they go to bed, are constantly juggling the multiple roles and responsibilities that define them. How dumb they are? Or do they have to be a conservative, female politician to be dubbed dumb? Tea party moms, you're in the same boat. Wendy Doniger, a professor at Chicago Divinity School, wrote "Her (Palin) greatest hypocrisy is her pretense that she is a woman." Coming from divinity school that doesn't sound too divine, but it does sound liberal. Maybe her definition of a woman would be Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer or Janet Napolitano. Mothers of Bucks County and beyond, do you align yourselves with these ladies who are proclaimed smart or with Sarah Palin who is ... well, you know? There's a major disconnect with the media's derangement syndrome. If Sarah Palin is so dumb and inconsequential, why do they go out of their way to castigate her? Why waste the time? It's a one-word answer ... fear. Never heard or read anything from Dennis Miller and I'm from the phillyburbs area. Pretty good piece of writing, maybe why they aren't sinking like the rest of the print media.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 332.
#6. To: reaganisright (#0)
This "argument" is the ROFLMAO moment of the debate. Why anyone would believes that ANYONE fears Palin is beyond anything containing a semblence of reason. She was an ineffective mayor. She was an ineffective governor who quit her position because, IN HER OWN WORDS, she was ineffective and couldn't handle the scrutiny. Everytime she opened her mouth she said something stupid. She couldn't handle two fluff interviews and the excuse that Katie Couric was laying in wait for her is laughable when you consider the fact that the question that tripped up the Virgin Mary was a simple inquiry into what media sources she used. One of the most bizzarre moments in political history is her resignation "speech".
You commies are afraid of Palin. No doubt. It is utter stupidity to say otherwise. The monkey in the white house has nightmares about her.
In 2008 Palin faced a $1.65 billion deficit in a $12.5 billion budget. Her solution - $280 million in spending cuts, coupled with withdrawing money from a state rainy-day fund to close the deficit. Why didn't she call for massive spending cuts? She also increased spending $5 billion in her last year in office, a 34% increase over FY2008. Sounds pretty liberal to me. Meanwhile, the current FY 2010 deficit is expected to be between $2 and $3 billion. So essentially she refused to make the tough decisions to reign in state spending and left the mess for her successor when she quit. Oh, and the 2009 stimulus bill provided $900 million to the state, allowing the state to reduce projected job cuts by 6,000. And unemployment in the state increased 1.5% during her last year in office.
Owe-bama tripled the deficit. Owe-bama DOUBLED the Unemployment rate. In 18 months. Yet you want to disparage Palin, even though she isn't governor of Alaska today? And give Owe-bama a pass? rotflmao! Keep digging, GO65!
Palin doubled the deficit in her state as well. And the U.S. unemployment rate was 8.1% when Obama took office. It's now 9.5% Math isn't a strong suite of yours there Badeye.
The unemployment rate when Bush left Office was 7.1%. Remember how President tar ball promised it wouldn't go above 8% if he could get his porkulus package?
Yes, he was flat out wrong. I do remember folks like Krugman arguing that he was mistaken to devote so much of the stimulus to tax cuts in an effort to win Republican support. Krugman was correct.
Krugman argued for a stim twice the size of what we got as well as, I believe from what I've read of his anyway, keeping open ended the tax credits that were consumer targetted. I was reading some analysts over the weekend trying to gauge what monetary velocity is doing...the consensus [if there is one] is that it is around 1.35 which is absolutely horrible. There was a huge drop off in mid 2007 but it bottomed and stayed somewhat level around mid 2008, ticked up slightly during the Summer and Fall of '09 [stim kicking in] and has since ticked down again. It should be averaging around 1.85 to sustain the recovery. Bottom line...we're getting another stim.
I was reading some analysts over the weekend trying to gauge what monetary velocity is doing...the consensus [if there is one] is that it is around 1.35 which is absolutely horrible. There was a huge drop off in mid 2007 but it bottomed and stayed somewhat level around mid 2008, ticked up slightly during the Summer and Fall of '09 [stim kicking in] and has since ticked down again. It should be averaging around 1.85 to sustain the recovery. Bottom line...we're getting another stim. Not in this political climate. We're heading for a reverse stimulus where states are slashing budgets and the federal government will also be forced to reign in spending. The end result will be more unemployment, and if Ireland is a guide, no change in the deficit as tax revenue drops offset any spending cuts. It's going to be really really ugly. Welcome to the reality of tea party politics espoused by those who lack any understanding of economics.
It's pretty clear that DCCC's - possibly Obama's - strategy is to put the GOP on the defensive about passing maeasures to help the unemployed and consumers.
Yes, but it doesn't seem to be working. My read of the political climate now is that people want budget cuts, but few realize that cutting spending during a recession is suicidal.
Maintaining a unsustainable deficit is suicidal.
That's true. But our deficit is unsustainable over the long-term, not the short term. Cutting short-term spending now will only lead to greater unemployment and reduced economic activity as the Ireland example underscores. The trick is to reduce spending/deficit during growth, something the GOP forgot when they inherited a growing economy and a surplus.
The trick is to reduce spending/deficit during growth, something the GOP forgot when they inherited a growing economy and a surplus. The trick is to make Americans believe Owe-bama knows what he's doing related to the economy. It isn't working. Look around.
Good luck convincing folks to return to the red:
Yeah - Let's all develop severe cases of amnesia about the economy during Bush Years, while stroking ourselves silly over the fantasmic 0bama Washington Propaganda Post graph.
I agree with you, we should remember the Bush economy, especially 2007.
This year to date makes 2007 look good. And I'd love to be in ANY YEAR between 1997 and 2007, rather than this one. So would everybody else with any common sense.
So you would be far happier then if the DJIA was sitting in the mid-6000's again and our financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse while even Conservatives were arguing for $800 billion bailouts? It seems that your biggest complaint is that the economy isn't doing poorly enough for you.
So you would be far happier then if the DJIA was sitting in the mid-6000's again In 2007, the Dow was around 14,000.
Shhhhh....(chuckle)
Finally! Dow finishes above 14,000 July 19 2007 http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/19/markets/markets_530/index.htm
Its interesting GO65 found 2007 so terrible, eh? (laughing)
Should I use your logic and argue that a higher DJIA is meaningless?
If my 'argument' was based only on DJIA you could. 2007 was a great year, especially compared to 2010. Which of course was what we were discussing. Figure thats concluded now.
And 2010 was a great year, compared to 2008. Agreed?
In 2008, unemployment started at 5% and ended at 7.4% The Dow did fall from about 12,000 to about 8,000. I'll leave it to you to compare that to 2010.
Unemployment rose 50% and the Dow lost 25% of it's value. I'll leave it to you to compare that to 2010. 2010 is a better year.
And it was still at least 2 full points higher than it has been all of 2010. By your logic, if unemployment rises from 1 to 1.5%, it has been a catastrophic year economically.
By your logic there is no logic. 5% to 7.5% is a significant increase no matter how you spin it. 1% to 1.5% is not.
And it's still significantly less than 10%, which was the actual argument.
Unemployment went where it did from the momentum that had been estblished during Boy Blunder's last years in office. To argue otherwise is reveal a significant deficit in having a clue.
That wasn't the argument, so I am not even going to get into that discussion. Stay on topic.
#335. To: no gnu taxes (#332)
Chuckles...sure it was...the "argument" was how was the economy that Obama inherited from your hero.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#8. To: war (#6)
Why anyone would believes that ANYONE fears Palin is beyond anything
#51. To: A K A Stone, badeye (#8)
(Edited)
"We were really trying very hard to minimize the impact on public services, those types of things. Because I think that with the current economic conditions there's sensitivity. If there were some massive reductions, or massive layoffs, that would have an unintended consequence of putting Alaska further into a recession,"
#71. To: go65 (#51)
#75. To: Badeye (#71)
Owe-bama tripled the deficit. Owe-bama DOUBLED the Unemployment rate.
#82. To: go65 (#75)
And the U.S. unemployment rate was 8.1% when Obama took office.
#90. To: no gnu taxes (#82)
The unemployment rate when Bush left Office was 7.1%. Remember how President tar ball promised it wouldn't go above 8% if he could get his porkulus package?
#95. To: go65 (#90)
(Edited)
I do remember folks like Krugman arguing that he was mistaken to devote so much of the stimulus to tax cuts in an effort to win Republican support. Krugman was correct.
#117. To: war (#95)
Krugman argued for a stim twice the size of what we got as well as, I believe from what I've read of his anyway, keeping open ended the tax credits that were consumer targetted.
#129. To: go65 (#117)
(Edited)
Not in this political climate.
#132. To: war (#129)
It's pretty clear that DCCC's - possibly Obama's - strategy is to put the GOP on the defensive about passing maeasures to help the unemployed and consumers.
#149. To: go65 (#132)
Yes, but it doesn't seem to be working. My read of the political climate now is that people want budget cuts, but few realize that cutting spending during a recession is suicidal.
#155. To: Badeye (#149)
Maintaining a unsustainable deficit is suicidal.
#185. To: go65 (#155)
That's true. But our deficit is unsustainable over the long-term, not the short term. Cutting short-term spending now will only lead to greater unemployment and reduced economic activity as the Ireland example underscores.
#187. To: Badeye (#185)
The trick is to make Americans believe Owe-bama knows what he's doing related to the economy.
#199. To: go65, Badeye (#187)
Good luck convincing folks to return to the red:
#206. To: Liberator (#199)
Let's all develop severe cases of amnesia about the economy during Bush Years,
#217. To: go65 (#206)
I agree with you, we should remember the Bush economy, especially 2007.
#240. To: Badeye (#217)
This year to date makes 2007 look good.
#249. To: go65 (#240)
This year to date makes 2007 look good.
#250. To: no gnu taxes (#249)
#254. To: Badeye (#250)
#256. To: no gnu taxes (#254)
#258. To: Badeye (#256)
Its interesting GO65 found 2007 so terrible, eh?
#263. To: go65 (#258)
Its interesting GO65 found 2007 so terrible, eh? Should I use your logic and argue that a higher DJIA is meaningless?
#267. To: Badeye (#263)
2007 was a great year, especially compared to 2010.
#282. To: go65 (#267)
#284. To: no gnu taxes (#282)
(Edited)
n 2008, unemployment started at 5% and ended at 7.4% The Dow did fall from about 12,000 to about 8,000.
#287. To: war (#284)
Unemployment rose 50%
#319. To: no gnu taxes (#287)
By your logic, if unemployment rises from 1 to 1.5%, it has been a catastrophic year economically.
#328. To: war (#319)
5% to 7.5% is a significant increase
#330. To: no gnu taxes (#328)
And it's still significantly less than 10%, which was the actual argument.
#332. To: war (#330)
Unemployment went where it did from the momentum
Replies to Comment # 332. That wasn't the argument
End Trace Mode for Comment # 332.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]