Why won't media rebut Sarah Palin's hypocritical attack?
July 27, 2009 11:22 am ET by Jamison Foser
What do this Associated Press article, this CNN report, this Washington Post article, this Politico article, and countless other news reports have in common?
They all quote Sarah Palin's resignation-speech attack on the news media: "how about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit making things up"
And none of them point out that Palin herself has a famous history of "making things up." Like her claim to have said "thanks but no thanks" to Congress' attempts to inflict a "bridge to nowhere" on her state.
Sarah Palin, who has a lengthy history of making things up, basically accused the news media of dishonoring dead American soldiers by ... making things up. And the media typed up her words, not daring to point out the utter hypocrisy of her sanctimonious attack. An attack on them.
Don't they have any self-respect?
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
F.D.R. worked until he died when he knew he was not fit.
Sarah Palin was a simple Governor but couldn't do that right.
Now she's headed to the lower 48 to pretend to lead the fight.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
If they had any self-respect, they wouldn't have been complicit in creating the Sarah Palin myth in the first place.
Or the crazy birthier who out of nowhere demanded the Town Hall audience Pledge Allegiance to the Flag?
Patriotism truly is the last refuge of a scoundrel...
In honor of the American you quit making things up?
Sarah Palin should practice what she preaches because
her whole political career has been based on "making
things up"
And how does she equate respecting the troops with telling lies about her? I don't get that at all. More crazy talk from a self important has been.
If she wins the republican nomination in 2012, republicans we could say, will have pulled a "Kerry". As in nominating the worst possible person to run against the incumbent, and I'll be laughing all the way to Inauguration in 2013.
When you can't name a single newspaper that you read on a daily basis it isn't the "liberal news media" that is making things up about you. It is your own moronic thoughts and comments that are doing you in. Thanks for helping keep John McCain out of the White House!
They pushed hard enough against the MSM and the press to stop criticizing their sacred idols like Palin & Reagan and BOOM, they start simply reprinting her statements without any balance, just like other GOP leaders enjoy.
Isn't it nice that media matters (for very little) and the stories linked above missed that preceding part of the content of her quote?
Speaking truth to progressives.....
In the magical world created on Planet Wingnut, out rights are not the inalienable rights bestowed on us by the founding documents, they are provided by young men and women dying in other countries.
And the right to free speech means the right to uncontested free speech, not subject to any criticism, analysis or rebuttal.
NOTE: These definitions apply only to speech coming out of the mouths of conservatives.
It's time the cons stop hiding behind the flag and the troops and start actually supporting the troops.
But you also reminded me that I've got to finish up working on your birthday present, the cyber party celebrating your unholy reign of terror on this planet is just days away~!
Seems to me most of the drooling comes from the leftists who despise anything that speaks of individual liberty and freedom.
We're discussing the hypnotism of the easily manipulated, and incoherent ramblings from the hypnotized don't really add anything to the discussion.
I think I can safely say that, based on your long history of confusion and distorted perception demonstrated here, nobody in the reality-based community gives a flying funk how things "seem" to you.
Well, aside from a couple of psychology students who might visit the site, possibly.
Margaret Carlson said it best, I think. Paraphrasing: The First Amendment doesn't protect [then Governor] Sarah Palin from The People. It protects The People from [then Governor] Sarah Palin.
Palin, as Governor and now, is free to say any idiotic thing she wants, and proved that quite well. And the press is free to quote her word for word, even when Palin lied repeatedly (37 times documented by one news person on the "thanks but no thanks" nonsense.)
Palin's First Amendment Rights were never in jeopardy. Not only did she freely speak her mind, but she had the national media recording it and playing it back for everyone day after day. Few people have had access to such a massive megaphone as Sarah Palin.
So tell us, what freedom did Palin have taken away or obstructed?
These people don't want to take us back to the 1950's...they want to take us back to the 1650's where barons and dukes ruled their local fiefdoms under the banner of their king and kept the peasants from rising up to demand such horrible things as rights and freedom.
Wrong on two counts: Our rights are inalienable and bestowed upon us by our Creator, a Creator beyond the reach of political whims or dictators. They exist both apriori and existentially because of the Creator's permanence.
The right to speak is certainly present and should be open to criticsm or analysis. However, it is not the same as saying I have a right to be heard, ie anything programmed on air america. Which means this is true for all humans, here now, in the past, future, in outer space, under the sea, thanks to the goodness of our Creator!
Palin? You seem to be disagreeing with her assertion that soldiers are dying for journalists to have the right to free speech, so we're on the same page there. I think Palin is wrong too.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your second paragraph,what point your agreeing or disagreeing with, so don't think me rude for not commenting on it.
by Col. Harlan Sanders (3 hours and 29 minutes ago)
8 Let me help out some of the non-wingnuts who can't make any sense out of Palin's gibberish.I listen to enough right wing radio that I'm able to translate some of the crazy.
In the magical world created on Planet Wingnut, out rights are not the inalienable rights bestowed on us by the founding documents, they are provided by young men and women dying in other countries.
And the right to free speech means the right to uncontested free speech, not subject to any criticism, analysis or rebuttal.
NOTE: These definitions apply only to speech coming out of the mouths of conservatives.
How the hell would you think that re-posting my entire comment would clarify your post?
Never mind, I don't think I want to know. I think I've gone deeper into the wingnut mind than any sane person should venture in one day.
Not in America. What country are you living in?
Moreover, Col pointed out by our "founding documents." That suggests to me either you didn't really read his post before flying off your religious handle or you don't know what the Declaration of Independence is.
It appears that it's you who lacks any familiarity with that document and its place in our country's history.
If you're trying to back up any argument using the Fact that it's what god wants, you're projecting your own philosophy onto a supreme being.
Anyone who claims to know the mind of God doesn't have a clue as to who God is.
That was pretty bright of the old dudes to leave God out of it, and let everybody apply their own interpretation of their creator.
C'mon, you're more than just a zygote gone bad. You and others of your ilk, humans, were recognized by the wisdom of judeo-christian thinkers and the founding fathers to have been 'endowed' with certain rights. That means they were smart enough to understand that without the permanancy that a 'Being', 'Providence' or now-a-days an 'Intelligent Designer' provides in endowment, then any government could deny those exist. We get our rights by the existence of something beyond ourselves. Were those rights present and available before the Declaration of Independence was written? Do they exist for people who don't live here? Do Cubans have the same rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
I say those rights are not bound by human institutions but existed before us and travel before us in any journey that mankind takes.
Oh yes, the Judeo-Christian thinkers who lauded genocide of the neighboring tribes, and our founding fathers who believed so much in our rights that they didn't practice them, choosing to own slaves.
Your argument about needing an outside deity to assure our rights sounds so profound, but it is as old as the hills (it is called foundationalism, I believe), and full of many logical problems. (For example, if only a deity can assure our rights, can this same deity take them away? etc.) As Huxley said, rights are never granted; they are seized. If blacks or women had waited for God to give them the right to vote, they still wouldn't have it.
Last, there is little proof that the founding fathers believed that a deity was needed to assure rights. Many, in fact, were deist, who believed that God took no interest in human affairs. Also, the rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence is just that--rhetoric. It sounds good to say that a more powerful creator is on your side, but it means nothing, and almost every political faction claims that, including the Taliban.
You then go on to insinuate that this is part of a pattern of her behavior, [quote][b]And none of them point out that Palin herself has a famous history of "making things up." [b] [quote] This is just your opinion.
And Jamison, I believe the comments about the bridge were made while running for governor. Her mind was changed after seeing the monstrosity it was and that it shouldn't have been built. Give her credit for dropping the waste the same way that legislators let go of the F-22, a nice porker for some constituents.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-a-roundup.html
More recent lies - her claims of the amount of money the state of Alaska has expended dealing with ethics complaints is false. She claimed $2 million. It's closer to one-quarter of that, nearly half of that amount used to deal with an ethics complaint she filed against herself. Her $2 million figure is not based on actual expenditures, her office admits, but rather on speculation of the cost based on hours worked by state officials. (Note she did not qualify the $2 million figure when she asserted it; she just lied.) She stated that the money expended could have been put towards other uses, when, in fact, state officials would have been paid for doing their job, no matter what task they attended to, and that erroneous $1.5 million could not have been spent elsewhere. So her assertion that the money could have been better used elsewhere is false. So Palin lied, several times about this topic.
She has said repeatedly that she "won" all ethics complaints, and they were all dismissed. Not true. She was found to be guilty of an ethics violation in the Troopergate case. She was forced to pay back money to the state for travel for her children. One of her aides was found to have unfairly used his position, and was told to undergo counseling. Palin lied again.
It is a matter of fact that Palin has lied over and over and over. Remember, Sullivan details 32 documented lies in less than a year.
You just demonstrated Col.'s point about Planet Wingnut perfectly. Palin DOES have a history of making things up; that's not opinion, it's well documented. Look here. Pretending that she is honest is deliberately ignoring the facts. Look them up for yourself, find reasons to "justify" them all you like, they're lies. Palin is, and was, and probably always will be, a liar.
a) mindless repetition of talking points.
b) lack of relevent knowledge, or any knowledge, for that matter.
c) partisan hackery.
Palin is a joke. Anyone who can't see that is also a joke (politically speaking, of course).
Two wingnuts posting here, both have missed the point of the item, and are accusing MM of spinning Palin's comment by not including the part where she made the ham-fisted connection that got them mesmerized.
Sad, but not shocking.
She doesn't just make it up...she pulls it out of her (expletive deleted).
So I blame the media and people like you for not supporting our troops and using them to settle imagined scores for hypocrites.
But why would MMFA want to use the FULL quote? That would not give them near as good of a case!! Why use the full quote when they can chop it in half, and give it meaning it never had. I find it very ironic that a so called media watch dog site could not afford the extra server space to put those few additional lines up. It shows the continued pattern of MMFA doing exactly what they claim the MM does. Sad, but not shocking.
Randy
Incidentally, did anyone else notice that the cited articles didn't post the entire section of the speech either? So apparently when Foser says:
...he's supposed to provide preceding text that wasn't actually quoted in the cited articles.
It seems like an odd criticism.
Of course, having some idea of what the difference is supposed to be would provide some insight as to why anyone was supposed to do this, much less the person citing the other sources.
To nutjobs like Palin if you tell the truth about what she's said and it makes her look less than godlike it's "Making things up".
Her ship has come in, and she will unload every grain. If there are enough sponsors, she will run. If she has to pay out of pocket, it will stay lecture, talk, and appearances.
Her ship has come in, and she will unload every grain. If there are enough sponsors, she will run. If she has to pay out of pocket, it will stay lecture, talk, and appearances.
Randy
You are correct, no self-respecting democrat party member would hide behind the troops. Never, not at all, nada, not a chance of hiding behind the troops.
Now, throwing them UNDER the bus that's a different matter! They fervently have done that. From Kerry accusing them of assaulting Iraqi women and children, Reid declaring them unable to win a war before a new strategy in place, Murtha calling them murders or calling a general a 'betrayer' and Mrs. Clinton's need to suspend disbelief in order to listen to him testify?
Yeah, you're right no hiding behind by dems!
Under the bus? I wonder if that's how Colin Powell feels right now.
You want belittling the troops? Check out the Swifties who supported two draft-dodgers while smearing one of their own. Just 8 years ago, your Bushies told us McCain lost it while in captivity only to see him support those who trashed him so thoroughly.
We want to give the troops body armor, not tell them they're out of luck. Why didn't Republicans investigate the Halliburton shower malfunctions which killed the troops if they truly care?
Sure, you may find some changes in decisions as Governor of Alaska. Look at Obama, he's made promises that he's not going to keep. Is he a hypocrite also? No and neither is Palin.
Politics is one things, but personal attacks, which is what happened to the Alaska governor, is anothere. I thought liberals are supposed to be above that, or so they've said when they defended Clinton.
Seriously, that's your complaint?
How did MSNBC "badger" Palin? Please explain in detail.
What she was referring to was the sleaze about her children.
One notable person (not in the news media, by the way) made some admittedly (admitted by him) over the line jokes about Palin's eldest daughter. And he apologized for doing that, and for the mistaken impression that it was about her next eldest daughter.
Other than that, what are you talking about? What sleaze?
Or how it was such a big deal that she kept the baby with down syndrome, wouldn't shut up about it, but when her opponents pointed out that it was her "choice" she made it was "sleaze".
And don't forget these are the same people who defended the Oxy freak for the "White House dog" photo of Chelsea Clinton.
huh?
Palin certainly does have an over-inflated sense of self-respect. That should tell YOU something.