posted June 09, 2011 01:18 PM            

I'm not nibbling around the edges at all. Sarah Palin made a nice long run-on sentence that was inaccurate. Only by deconstructing what she said can you come up with your bullet points. THAT would be nibbling around the edges. Only by doing that can people attempt a justification that she got it right. Her run on sentence is wrong, however. He didn't warn the British against confiscating arms, he didn't ring bells, and HE didn't fire shots. All part of what Palin said, and ALL patently false.

quote:

---

Now, repeat after me..."Madam President".

---

posted June 09, 2011 03:18 PM            

Historians agree with Sarah Palin.

Nothing agrees with katatonic.

Palin never said "Revere rode out "to warn" the British...and neither did Revere say he "rode out to warn the British".

I understand you cannot argue against the main issues....

Palin said:

Revere warned the British
Shots were fired
Bells were rung

So, any argument which does not address the central core of what Palin said...IS nibbling around the edges of the issue.

posted June 09, 2011 03:26 PM            

Another “WTF” Obama Foreign Policy Moment*
by Sarah Palin on Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 4:16am

As many readers have pointed out “WTF” is for “Winning The Future,” President Obama’s re-election campaign slogan.

As Governor I fought the Obama Administration’s plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska. So imagine how appalled and surprised I was to read this article by former Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey, appropriately titled “Giving Away the Farm,” concerning President Obama’s latest bizarre actions relating to missile defense.

President Obama wants to give Russia our missile defense secrets because he believes that we can buy their friendship and cooperation with this taxpayer-funded gift. But giving military secrets and technologies to a rival or competitor like Russia is just plain dumb. You can’t buy off Russia. And giving them advanced military technology will not create stability. What happens if Russia gives this technology (or sells it!) to other countries like Iran or China? After all, as Woolsey points out, Russia helped Iran with its missile and nuclear programs. Or what happens if an even more hardline leader comes to power in the Kremlin?

We tried buying off the Kremlin with technologies in the 1970s. That policy was a component of “detente,” and the hope was that if we would share our technologies with them, they would become more peaceful. Things, of course, didn’t work out that way. The Kremlin took western technologies and embarked on a massive military building program. History teaches that peace comes from American military strength. And a central component of that has always been technological superiority. Why would President Obama even dream of giving this away?

Members of Congress saw how foolish President Obama’s gambit was, so they put a section in the defense appropriation bill that specifically forbids the federal government from spending money to share these technologies with the Kremlin. President Obama actually threatened to veto the defense appropriation bill over this section of the law! Fortunately, the House passed the bill with a veto-proof majority, a whopping 322 to 96. Attention now turns to the Senate.

Why is it that President Obama seems to work so hard to give things to our enemies, while at the same time asking friends and allies like Israel to make sacrifices?

During these tough economic times when we are facing massive deficits and a competitive global economy, does President Obama really want to give away technologies that the American taxpayer paid lots of money to develop? Giving away our missile defense secrets won’t make us safer. What it will do is create a situation where we are facing an arms race with ourselves. Russia gets access to our technologies, and we are forced to spend even more money because of the need to stay ahead. Does this make sense to you? Me neither. File this under “WTF.”

posted June 09, 2011 03:51 PM            

I agree with Katatonic. She seems to understand simple english as spoken by an Alaskan, and also the english used to relate the history of Paul Revere. Anyone with even half a brain would.

quote:

---

Palin said:

Revere warned the British
Shots were fired
Bells were rung

---

Palin's been adequately and accurately quoted. This summation by you doesn't cut it, because each point leaves out a detail of what she attributed to each thing (which in turn makes them patently false).

posted June 09, 2011 11:26 PM            

The Paul Revere Trap
An obvious act of cruelty from Sarah Palin.
by John Hayward
06/06/2011

Sarah Palin is generally a forthright individual, judged by either absolute standards, or the sliding scale applied to politicians. That’s why recent evidence of devious behavior on her part is so disturbing.

I can believe she was thinking only of her intended audience when she told the Tea Party to “party like it’s 1773.” Of course liberals have no idea when the original Tea Party occurred, and raced to demonstrate their deplorable ignorance of history by attacking her for saying it. She didn’t know they were going to make fools of themselves. She was thinking about the Tea Party enthusiasts she was speaking to, not ignorant lefty bloggers and talking heads.

But this time… this time was on purpose. She knew exactly what she was doing when she said Paul Revere “warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells, and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that were going to be secure, and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.”

She knew that lefty bloggers and media talking heads would walk right into it. She knew they are as ignorant of the Revolution as they were of the Tea Party, and remember nothing about Paul Revere except “one if by land, two if by sea.” She knew damn well they wouldn’t be able to resist the opportunity to stick their noses in the air and arrogantly inform their audiences that she needs to go back to school and take high-school history over again.

There’s no way I’m letting Palin slide on this. Just look at how she responded when Chris Wallace asked her about the Paul Revere nontroversy:

“Oh man, it seems like I have answered this question a million times in the last week. And folks still, I guess aren’t understanding it. At least reporters don’t seem to understand it. Even your own Shep Smith there on Fox News – he announced the other day I was on some publicity tour. I wanted to say, Shep, take it one step further. What am I publicizing on tour?

I’m publicizing Americana and our foundation and how important is it we learn about our past and our challenges and victories throughout American history so that we can successfully proceed forward very heady days, rough waters ahead of us, Chris. We need to make sure we have a strong grasp of our foundational victory to move forward. That’s what we are highlighting on the bus tour.”

She could have simply explained that she’s exactly right about what Paul Revere did, but understands why so many people think she made a mistake, because they only have a superficial understanding of history. She could have quoted Revere’s own account of the famous “midnight ride” and gently suggested certain people do a little more reading before they act like jackasses on national television.

Instead, she just left it hanging out there for a couple more days, while laughing and hooting liberals piled into the broken roller coaster she had created for them… until the Boston Herald was obliged to run an article headlined, “Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account… you betcha she was right!” Now the roller coaster car is rocketing toward broken track hanging six thousand blog posts in the air, and there is no way to get off. My God, she’s a fiend.

Frightened liberals flailing around for ways to attack Palin should give up on writing ridiculous diatribes about how she’s endangering the lives of reporters by refusing to provide the exact route of her “One Nation” tour in advance. It’s manifestly absurd to keep bleating that she has no “substance” when she belts out impromptu policy speeches every time she hops off that bus. Instead, you should be complaining about her cruel genius for making liberals look stupid. Only Anthony Weiner can hold a candle to her at that… and she’s obviously having much more fun doing it.

Update: I really should have made the link to that Boston Herald piece bigger, for the benefit of the odd lefty trying to stumble in here and squeak that Palin was still wrong somehow. Here it is again:

Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account
You betcha she was right!

http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353

posted June 10, 2011 11:29 AM            

How true acoustic...as I've previously remarked!

It's the brain dead left and their drooling O'Bomber press propagandists who have attempted to erect a monument to their self-assumed intellectual superiority.

But, these morons, with delusions of grandeur, are proved the least intellectually capable people in America as events unfold which are testaments to their colossal ignorance and stupidity. Intellectual pygmies is the correct designation for leftists.

Leftists should know they're in big trouble indeed with their quest to smear Palin as a historical idiot...when the Boston Herald publishes the story...

Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account
You betcha she was right!

posted June 10, 2011 11:30 AM              

But you can't expect everyone to join the party. As long as we know that Palin is fooling nobody all of the time, the darker side can be tolerated. The shadow is always with us. Today it's on a book tour.

i can't agree that nobody is being fooled but i agree that very few are, no matter how much jwhop protests, and that the left (and center) should be careful not to play up opposition TOO much, lest they create what they are trying to debunk.

posted June 10, 2011 11:52 AM            

quote:

---

Leftists should know they're in big trouble indeed with their quest to smear Palin as a historical idiot...when the Boston Herald publishes the story...

---

Why in the world would anyone suppose that the Boston Herald article proves Palin right? Absolute nonsense hogwash. No trouble here, Jwhop. People that understand what Palin said as well as what the history says, know the two aren't in agreement.

History bends in the hands of ideologues
Article by: JACK SCHNEIDER Updated: June 9, 2011 - 10:06 PM

Sarah Palin's goal -- and the goal of many in politics -- is to recast history, to enlist a roster of heroes in support of her agenda.

According to Sarah Palin, Paul Revere was the American Revolution's answer to Charlton Heston. Revere "warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms," she said in Boston on June 2.

Challenged on her version of events, Palin insisted that she "didn't mess up" the Paul Revere story and continued her history lesson "Part of his ride was to warn the British that we're already there. That, hey, you're not going to succeed. You're not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have."

She wasn't entirely wrong. American revolutionaries did have arms stored in Concord, and British General Thomas Gage had orders to seize them.

In riding to warn the Sons of Liberty of Gage's intent to arrest them, Revere may also have prevented the rebel cache of weapons from being captured. Palin sympathizers have even noted that when Revere was detained by the British, he defiantly proclaimed American independence.

But getting history right isn't Palin's concern. Her concern is with conjuring a past that justifies her political orientation.

Guns, Palin was arguing, are our history. Paul Revere's midnight ride was about guns. And what could be more American than the midnight ride?

Nothing. Except, perhaps, for the manipulation of history.

Most Americans will recall from elementary school the story of Paul Revere charging around Massachusetts on horseback, warning of the impending arrival of British troops.

The version of the story told in school texts, however, is not one of Revere confronting the British about their oppressive antigun attitudes. Instead, it is one of a lone figure, waiting in the dark, looking for a signal.

"One, if by land, and two, if by sea;

And I on the opposite shore will be,

Ready to ride and spread the alarm

Through every Middlesex village and farm,

For the country folk to be up and to arm."

Two raised lanterns indicated an arrival by sea. Revere took off into the night.

That version of events, though -- a staple of elementary school curricula -- is fiction; it comes from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem, "Paul Revere's Ride."

Longfellow, like Palin, had part of the story right. But he, too, had an agenda. Longfellow was a northern abolitionist, and "Paul Revere's Ride" appeared in the Boston Transcript on the eve of the Civil War in December 1860.

In fact, just a week after Longfellow's poem was published, South Carolina seceded from the Union. War was on the horizon.

Was Longfellow manipulating history for his own purposes? Yes.

Longfellow hoped that Americans, on the eve of the Civil War, would remember the heroism that forged the union in the first place. And to some extent, it worked.

"During a time of great national upheaval," the Maine Historical Society suggests, "people seized on Paul Revere as an example of the county's noble past."

Was Longfellow exaggerating when he wrote that "the fate of a nation was riding that night"? Of course.

"One if by land, two if by sea" conjures visions of a British invasion. But the British were already here. By sea didn't mean arrival in Boston Harbor from England. It meant crossing the Charles River.

But Longfellow's strategy worked. So iconic is Paul Revere that when Lynne Cheney denounced the ill-fated National History Standards as "grim and gloomy," she pointed to the omission of Revere as evidence of the standards' weakness.

Now it's Sarah Palin's turn, and she wants to cast Revere as a proud gun owner. She wants us to see him as someone who supported the wishes of "well-armed persons" to remain that way.

She is out to create a new historical narrative.

Debating whether Sarah Palin is well-versed in American history misses the point of her kind of political rhetoric. Her aim isn't to get history right any more than it was Longfellow's.

Her goal -- and the goal of many in politics -- is to recast history, to enlist a roster of heroes in support of her agenda.

Those who manipulate history know that if you say something long enough, and loud enough -- or, as Longfellow did, set it to rhyme -- it just might stick. Whether or not they know what really happened is irrelevant. What they know is that the past has power.

Jack Schneider is Robert A. Oden Jr. Postdoctoral Fellow for Innovation in the Liberal Arts at Carleton College, where he teaches in the Educational Studies Department.

Palin and the truth about Paul Revere

June 09, 2011|By Kenneth C. Davis, Special to CNN

"Listen, my children, and you shall hear / Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere, / On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five, / Hardly a man is now alive / Who remembers that famous day and year."

If nothing else is right about Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem, first published more than 85 years after that legendary ride, the part about not remembering the day and year rings true.

Since Sarah Palin's impromptu discourse on Paul Revere, there has been much discussion of her account. She referred to the famed horseman as, "He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."

Her words provoked an awful lot of hysteria, but not enough history, about this signal event.

It would be easy to turn this into a "gotcha" moment, to catch misconceptions and mistakes -- of which many of us are guilty. Survey after survey show that many Americans are woefully inadequate when it comes to knowing about our nation's past. So maybe we can call this one of those teachable moments that gives us a chance to bust myths and perhaps learn a larger lesson about why we are so confused about our history and what we can do about it.

First, to Paul Revere and his "midnight ride."

To set the scene. Revere's legendary ride started -- as Longfellow stated -- "On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five." The Declaration of Independence was more than a year away. George Washington was not yet in command of a Continental army. In fact, there was no army and no United States. Most of the 13 colonies' inhabitants considered themselves British subjects, many quite loyal to the Crown.

But it was a tense, dangerous time in Boston, then under martial law. Some 3,000 British troops, many living in private homes under the Quartering Act, were despised by the people of Massachusetts. Boston was reeling under a harsh economic blockade passed in the aftermath of the "Tea Party" in December 1773. Jobs were scarce and the mood was made grimmer by a smallpox epidemic.

Animosity between the British and the insurgents was high. When colonial militiamen seized British gunpowder from a New Hampshire fort in December 1774, the rumors of war ratcheted even higher. In spring 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage, the British military governor of Massachusetts, had one simple goal: Arrest the treasonous ringleaders of the "insurrection," political firebrand Samuel Adams and wealthy merchant John Hancock, and capture some hundred barrels of gunpowder hidden in Concord.

On the night of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere, silversmith, engraver and denture-maker, and several other patriot messengers, got their riding orders from Dr. Joseph Warren, one of the patriot ringleaders. Warren had learned through his spies that the British would move to capture or kill Hancock and Adams. Revere and other riders, including tanner William Dawes, were dispatched to warn the two men that British troops were on the move to arrest them in Lexington and seize the powder hidden in Concord.

Revere arranged for the famous lantern signal to be hung from the Old North Church to alert the other riders in case he was captured. In Charlestown, across the river from Boston, Dawes and others awaited word of how the British troops would move: "By land" if they were marching across Boston Neck; or "by sea" if they were crossing the Charles River in longboats. It was "by sea," but a poorly organized operation. It took hours for the British troops to cross the Charles.

Setting out around 11 p.m., Revere and Dawes both reached Lexington by separate routes and warned Hancock and Adams, stopping along the way to alert local patriot militia -- the Minute Men -- that "The Regulars are coming out." Then they were joined by a young physician, Samuel Prescott, and headed for Concord. British soldiers on patrol stopped them, Revere was captured and his horse taken from him; Prescott escaped.

By then, the word had spread among the farmers and merchants, those Minute Men who had been training as a militia for months, to await the British at Lexington and Concord Greens. In the early morning of April 19, 1775, shots were exchanged between the rebels and Redcoats. Who fired the "shot heard round the world" is a mystery. But as the British later trudged back to Boston, they were attacked constantly. Veteran troops of the world's most powerful army took heavy losses that would shock London. The die was truly cast. The American Revolution was under way.

The truth of Revere's ride, the long road to American independence and the real people behind that extraordinary moment is a far more compelling narrative of intrigue, courage and a life-and-death battle for power than the "bedtime story" version most of us recall from half-remembered third grade poetry.

But we prefer holding onto a tidy scenario of pride and patriotism that is neither accurate nor memorable, if we remember at all. Instead, we settle for ignorance, as periodic surveys of American knowledge of history routinely prove. Or we cobble together a sketchy narrative combining fact and fiction to comfortably fit our political agendas.

That is sad. And dangerous. It is sad because history is compelling, fascinating and instructive -- if we tell the real story.

But it is also dangerous when people "cherry pick" pieces of the story to suit their purposes, when the foot is cut to fit the shoe. A sanitized but incomplete, or worse, wildly inaccurate, version of history can be cited to support just about any political stand. Like scripture, the words and deeds of the Founders, mixed with bits and pieces of American mythology, are trumpeted to support positions on every issue from individual rights, states' rights, gun rights or gun control, to taxes, immigration, public prayer and, most dangerously, taking the nation to war.

When American history is gutted, innocently, ignorantly or deliberately, the outcome can be deadly. If we are told that there is no separation of church and state in the First Amendment, that the Founders worked tirelessly to end slavery or that the Revolution was all about taxes on tea, we are hearing half-truths or outright fabrications. Our extraordinary history deserves better. The truth shall set you free.

By the way, Paul Revere, a true American hero who took enormous risks, served in the militia during the Revolution but was later accused of cowardice. A court martial acquitted him in 1782 and he lived a long, prosperous life, dying in 1818 at age 83.

And Longfellow? He too suited historical facts to fit his purposes. An ardent Abolitionist, he wrote his poem in 1861 to inspire patriotic sentiment among fellow Unionists, turning Revere's ride into a symbolic warning as the nation confronted the next great crisis -- the Civil War.

posted June 10, 2011 12:08 PM            

By Susan Milligan

Posted: June 8, 2011

Politicians and movement leaders have long understood one ironic truth: Repeat a misstatement with enough hubris and fierceness, and people will believe it. But the Internet has added a new danger level to that destructive theme.

Witness the push-back by defenders of Sarah Palin, a could-be presidential candidate who wrongly characterized Paul Revere’s Revolutionary War-era ride. Palin, on a family vacation-*** -"SarahPac" promotional tour, told reporters Revere was warning the British that the colonists would not give up their guns. She said Revere rang bells and shot his gun as a warning. Historians disagree (Revere was actually warning his comrades, not the enemy British soldiers), but Palin fans rushed to edit the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite history, seeking to turn Palin’s misstatement into historical fact. (Wikipedia has since locked the page on Revere while things calm down.)

The concept isn’t entirely new—and as David Farenthold very smartly pointed out in the Washington Post this week—many politicians have fallen prey to Internet misinformation, repeating quotes from historical figures that were never uttered. And as many lawmakers and public figures have learned, it’s very difficult to undo bad information communicated by the web, since so many people continue to hit the "forward" button on mischaracterizations and outright lies repeated online. It’s one of the reasons members of Congress repeatedly have to tell people that no, in fact, they are not spared the burden of paying federal taxes or Social Security taxes. And no, they are not allowed to go to their flights without going through security first. But so many people would like to believe that—and so many continue to indignantly post such misinformation online—that the protestations are largely ineffectual. [See photos from Palin's bus tour.]

There are some basic truths about the Internet. It can be a great way to reconnect with people one has lost track of. But your Facebook friends are not really your friends. Try actually spending time with people you like. A quote is not necessarily a real quote just because someone wrote it online; look it up—perhaps in an actual book that has been edited and fact-checked by actual historians. And Wikipedia can be a terrific start to a research project, but it also is not necessarily reliable or complete. [See political cartoons about Palin.]

As Yogi Berra once famously said (we think), you can look it up.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2011/06/08/sarah-palin-and-the-wikipedia-war-over-paul-revere_print.html

Sarah Palin: A hero to failing history students everywhere
June 08, 2011

Dearest Sarah,

You are my hero! It would have been so easy to say, "Oops, I misspoke. You see, I've been on the road, I haven't slept much, and I have this terrible fire in the belly. Of course, Paul Revere wasn't warning the British…"

But no. You stuck to your story with, "I know my American history." What do those Bostonians know about Paul Revere anyway? The important thing here is that you looked so attractive while saying it!

Where were you, Sarah Palin, when I was getting a "D" in American history in college? Had I only known that defending my incorrect test answers was an option.

You are my hero, Sarah, and if you decide to run for president, you have my vote. I can only guess how many jobs will be created rewriting history books.

Peggy Rowe, Perry Hall http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-08/news/bs-ed-palin-historian-20110608_1_sarah-palin-history-students-hero

posted June 10, 2011 01:48 PM            

The mush-brains are right to fear Sarah Palin but attempting character assassinations, branding her as stupid and all the other moronic efforts to drive down Palin's political numbers ARE the proof of desperation on the left.

The Palin ankle-biters know Palin will rip O'Bomber a new "One" if she decides to run for president and wins the Republican nomination.

Even the title of this thread is testament to the utter fear leftists have of Palin. Palin's intellect dwarfs that of the thread starter...and everyone knows it. This thread starter isn't intelligent enough to even begin to assess Palin's intellect.

Palin said Revere warned the British.
Revere said he warned the British.

Palin said shots were fired.
Revere said shots were fired.

Palin said bells were rung.
Historians say bells were rung.

Yet, mush-brains, in their colossal ignorance, are still trying to escape the fact that Palin IS right and their leftist press icons and mush-brain associates ARE wrong.

posted June 10, 2011 03:10 PM              

it is not stupidity but lack of substance and conviction, a different thing altogether. there's so much "tv" in that smile and presentation that speaks "facade" and "false"...she doesn't think the current admin should delete oil subsidies, but she thinks HER admin should delete ALL subsidies to energy biz; in fact like jwhop, and many conservatives, even if obama opts for something the republicans were in favour of she will dismiss it as "socialist" or at the least incompetent.

scared? i don't think many are scared of palin, but her blatant publicity-seeking, ego-centered style of campaigning is part of what chopra calls the "shadow" of the american persona generalized.

does anyone think that schwartzenegger would have become governor without his star status? or reagan for that matter? again it is the comfort of a familiar face, a household name, that influences MANY voters, and THAT is what palin's books, tv shows and current tour are about...also, to the cynic, a ploy to sell more of those books, since the 2nd installment apparently didn't really make the hoped-for sales counts...

posted June 10, 2011 03:21 PM            

The experts that supposedly back Palin up, did what you did, or corrected her along the way like the NPR guy.

quote:

---

Palin said Revere warned the British.
Revere said he warned the British.

Palin said shots were fired.
Revere said shots were fired.

Palin said bells were rung.
Historians say bells were rung.

---

We've already been over the folly of this. No bitter clinging to falsehood is going to change the fact that you don't address what she warned the British about, you don't address who Palin implies fired the shots, and you don't address who Palin implies rang the bells. You leave out the inconvenient stuff.

posted June 13, 2011 10:02 AM            

Yeah, I know, it's supposed to be press corp but press corpse is so much more descriptive of the reality.

Everything I Do Is Wrong
Charlie Rich

Oh, and katatonic; I'm sure Sarah Palin will be relieved to hear you're not going to tell any more lies about her!

June 13, 2011
Barracuda Snakecharmer Sarah and the Mob
By James Lewis

If you're not laughing along with Sarah Palin's playing Gotcha! with the media, you're not paying attention.

Sarah Barracuda is playing the press for suckers, and they hate it. But they can't (they) leave the story alone. Result: weeks of excited headline coverage, free publicity galore, right up her alley. The media mob are cutting their noses to spite their faces.

I don't know if we have the sleaziest and most corrupt media in American history -- maybe in human history? -- but they all deserve a Pulitzer for Aggravated Mendacity. (That means "lying," if any of them are trying to read this). But it's not just their Central Party Line propaganda, day in and day out. It's also their personal wickedness, their abject ignorance, bottomless vulgarity and corruption, their lynch mob mentality -- even aimed at one-year old baby Trig Palin -- their idiotic mass conformity, and now, thanks to Governor Palin, they look like the idiots they really are. The sheer malignity of the Left and its Organs of Propaganda is being exposed every single day.

One of the most disgraceful villains at the WaPo, Dana Milbank, started a twitter campaign a couple of months ago to drive Sarah Palin out of the media -- for at least a week. Mr. Milbanks is a JourNOlist, you see. His job is not to tell the truth. Nope. It's to run coverups for the Demagogues and to destroy as many Republicans as possible. Milbank is a PC Commissars of Censorship and Propaganda. Trying to blacklist Sarah Palin is an act of flagrant censorship. That's what the Left tries to do to anybody who dares to speak up against them.

Well, last week Sarah Palin scored 263,000,000 Google hits. In the last four weeks the score is 959,000,000, almost a billion. Free publicity. No Gotcha's!

All the editors are screaming at their newsies, and those dogged news hounds are screaming back. You betcha.

Poor David Brooks is all upset. She's not playing fair!

What Bernie Madoff did to do-gooder charities, Sarah is doing to the press mob. She keeps drawing them in, lusting after fabulous Gotcha! headlines, and then flipping them the bird. This has been going on for months. It drives them to the brink of sanity. Palin is turning the tables on the press, and they don't like it. Manipulating people is their job.

Here's a brilliant piece of PR: Sarah's non-campaign bus tour. The mediots are running ragged trying to follow Palin's giant campaign-type bus, she's making headlines every day, but she will not announce her presidential run. (Not yet... maybe never...).

So the panting wolf pack goes chasing after the bus wherever it goes, the Palin non-campaign isn't telling them anything, and every now and then Sarah and her family disappear from the bus without telling the sweating jourNOlists, who can't stop running because they don't know when she's going to make the Big Announcement. (Maybe tomorrow? Maybe never?)

All kinds of complaints in the media. This isn't fair! Sarah's bus is a danger to traffic! They should slow down. They should give the press a daily itinerary.

But Palin doesn't need to please the media. She has her Facebook, she has Twitter, she has her own websites, YouTube movies, that big new movie coming out, most of all she's got the movie star good looks and that smile. Feminazis all around the country are having nightmares. What if we get President Sarah Palin? They will never live it down.

Normal campaigns have PR people to kiss the press's ample buttocks in return for half-decent coverage. The Palin answer is that this is not a campaign at all... who needs a PR guy or gal? She just happens to be driving that big bus to primary states.

Shazzam! Sarah shows up in New Hampshire, just in time to take the wind out of Mitt Romney's campaign. (She makes a nice apology the next day, but the damage is done. Oopsey! Didn't mean to do that, Governor Romney. Just happened to be steamrollering through New Hampshire with dozens of TV satellite vans on my tail!) On she goes.

Then there's the well-timed 24,000 email web dump, courtesy of the State of Alaska and some moronic state FOIA demand from the media.

Lefties around the world were salivating, sure they would finally get a chance to dig really nasty dirt about this brilliant woman -- who they're sure is a drooling idiot. I mean, she called her baby Trig! And she didn't abort him! How moronic is that?

The Left fell for Sarah's sucker play. The New York Times called for volunteers to go through Sarah Palin's emails as Governor of Alaska. The WaPo cried for help. Even the UK Guardian (a big power in the Leftist Party Line cabal) is desperately looking for data crunchers. The LA Times is wetting its collective pants.

I was afraid the mob would finally crucify Governor Palin. Who doesn't have some dirt in 24,000 emails? Can the NYT or the WaPo pass that test? Not a chance. If we ever get a chance to read their in-house emails, ugly dirt will spill from every page. These are not nice people, our mediots, and they are very abusive -- to each other, to their audiences, and to politicians. They run a reign of terror.

The result? The emails show that Palin ran a competent administration in Alaska, that she conducted tough negotiations with the oil companies, that the corrupt Republican blowhards over there hate Our Sarah as much as the Demagogue apparatchiks. If there are any honest people still slogging through that mountain of emails, they may turn into Palin fans yet. So that non-scandal kept Sarah in the headlines for another couple of weeks. Just like with the non-campaign bus, the media ended up exposing only itself. And the sight ain't purty.

How does that compare to the solid media blackout for one Barack Hussein Obama? The last election was just one big media scam, in cahoots with David Axelrod and George Soros. Obama lied from beginning to end. He lied about Jerry Wright, he lied about Bill Ayers, most of all he lied about himself. The media covered up Hussein's real life, his real Leninoid ideology, and told Americans they would be racists if they didn't vote for a pig in a poke. They turned Hussein into a rock idol. JourNOlism. Only the conservative media dug out relevant facts.

Today we still don't have any facts about Obama's blackout years in college, not to mention those mysterious Social Security numbers, the authorship of Obama's two autobiographies, how much Saudi money got through those open website portals, and what Obama's planted mole Commissars are really doing in the administration without Congressional oversight. This doesn't look like an American administration; it looks like a Chicago mob racket.

Obama has a mobster's control over the media. They know they will get hurt if they don't click their heels and go Hail Hussein! So they do it.

When Obama had Osama killed the media burst out in loud Hosannahs! like some grooving gospel choir. But you know they did it on command. These people salivate all over Obama's trouser crease whenever he rings the bell, like Pavlov's dog. They've actually said so.

So is Sarah Barracuda really Sarah the snake-charmer? She certainly has them hypnotized. For three whole years they've told us how much they hate her, but they can't stop giving her headlines.
It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of vipers. Somewhere down in Hades, H.L. Mencken is having fits of the giggles. Mencken was an honest journalist; but we have no Henry Louis Mencken today.

posted June 13, 2011 11:26 AM            

Is there any intelligent life on the far left political fringe?

Personally, I can't find any evidence to suggest there is.

Leftists are in the grip of Palin Derangement Syndrome...PDS.

Here, 3 delusional leftists are talking about the 24,000 Palin emails...and Palin's intentions for a 2012 presidential run...and WHY Sarah Palin wants The One, The Messiah O'Bomber to win the 2012 election.

This is real, gut wrenching stupidity on display at MSNBC. But, they do have an mindless audience for this kind of stupidity.

posted June 14, 2011 11:29 AM            

You've been a constant yipper and yapper against Sarah Palin; contributing false, libelous characterizations gleamed from the lunatic websites you frequent.

The reality of Sarah Palin is very different from the caricature you present.

posted June 14, 2011 11:45 AM              

there is no law or principle that says i have to like palin. i think she is artificial, vapid and egocentric. you going to police my thoughts and feelings now? i have every right to say so too.

posted June 20, 2011 10:24 AM            

You said "Sarah Palin has been 'indicted' in Alaska".

Then, you attempted to dance around the definition of "indicted" which has a very definite legal definition. You attempted to equate "indicted" with "investigate".

posted June 20, 2011 10:30 AM            

"Sorry, everybody, but after watching this astonishing video, I can come to no other conclusion. The evidence is irrefutable. We can’t afford to put somebody this dumb in the White House:"
http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/20/ive-been-denying-the-obvious-but-this-is-the-last-straw-palin-really-is-an-idiot/

posted June 20, 2011 03:11 PM            

If you don't mind acoustic...and even if you do mind...katatonic is capable of speaking for herself. In fact, katatonic is far more rational than you are.

I've never seen katatonic talk about how ballsy terrorists are...for killing people they don't even know.

I've never seen katatonic talk about the oppression/repression of America for not shipping Saddam a water treatment plant.