Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bwuahahahaha, she's already said she'll refuse to interview Katie Couric again. Then again, in the interview she really did a great job of making herself look bad. Wasn't Katie's fault Palin couldn't answer a question.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/22/palin-wont-waste-time-on-couric/?iref=obnetwork

I expect Palin to do something impressive in 2012 simply because so many left-leaning bloggers, writers, commentators, etc. talk bad about her so much and at such length. It just seems odd to me that if you don't like a politician you go out of your way to keep giving them airtime and keep their name in public.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I expect Palin to do something impressive in 2012 simply because so many left-leaning bloggers, writers, commentators, etc. talk bad about her so much and at such length. It just seems odd to me that if you don't like a politician you go out of your way to keep giving them airtime and keep their name in public.

One thing I noticed, the left's intelligencia will always telegraph who's positions they fear the most. Sarah Palin is about as diametrically opposite of liberalism as there is, hence they attack her.

Stormrider wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I expect Palin to do something impressive in 2012 simply because so many left-leaning bloggers, writers, commentators, etc. talk bad about her so much and at such length. It just seems odd to me that if you don't like a politician you go out of your way to keep giving them airtime and keep their name in public.

One thing I noticed, the left's intelligencia will always telegraph who's positions they fear the most. Sarah Palin is about as diametrically opposite of liberalism as there is, hence they attack her.

So, you're saying that people tend to disagree the most with... the people they tend to disagree with the most?

Are you saying that the right wing commentators that rail endlessly about Obama don't fear him?

Polonius wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I expect Palin to do something impressive in 2012 simply because so many left-leaning bloggers, writers, commentators, etc. talk bad about her so much and at such length. It just seems odd to me that if you don't like a politician you go out of your way to keep giving them airtime and keep their name in public.

One thing I noticed, the left's intelligencia will always telegraph who's positions they fear the most. Sarah Palin is about as diametrically opposite of liberalism as there is, hence they attack her.

So, you're saying that people tend to disagree the most with... the people they tend to disagree with the most?

Are you saying that the right wing commentators that rail endlessly about Obama don't fear him?

I agree with that, but most of what is said about Palin (and Obama, at least prior to his election) was and is slanderous. Legitimate critiscisms are fine, but there is really too much vitriol in many of the pieces about Palin and Obama that are completley irrelevant to their positions. Plus there's endless harranging about her family too. "We get it bloggers and HuffPo, you don't like the woman, or her clan."

Now I don't understand her endless overexposure, she's going to fall into Obama's trap of being on the TV all of the time (which it seemed like he was prior to the Election, and is now).

Pretty damn sure liberal media will go nuts on people they are actually afraid of getting power.

Well, first off, slander has a legal definition, which little if any of the comments would fall under.

I'd imagine her overexposure is by design. By most reliable accounts, she is essentially megalomaniacal. She wants power and attention, not for any purpose, but just because they're awesome. I think she's just intoxicated by the limelight and the populist groundswell she's riding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VermGho5t wrote:Pretty damn sure liberal media will go nuts on people they are actually afraid of getting power.

Yeah, but like most liberals they are well intentioned but ultimately ineffectual.

Stormrider wrote:
I agree with that, but most of what is said about Palin (and Obama, at least prior to his election) was and is slanderous. Legitimate critiscisms are fine, but there is really too much vitriol in many of the pieces about Palin and Obama that are completley irrelevant to their positions.

What criticism of Palin has been slanderous? I mean, I'm sure there have been slanderous claims about her, but for the most part the criticism has been a derivation of "she's and idiot". And, quite honestly, the woman isn't very bright; at least based on her public speaking record. That's not even something that's an invention of the Left either, plenty of conservative commentators have noted her apparent lack of intelligence.

Truthfully, there hasn't been that much slander of Obama either. I mean, aside from the birther contingent that is.

As a lawyer, it's a pet peeve when people say "slanderous" when they actually want to say "mean."

And that's without getting into the technical details of slander, libel, and defamation.

How is the Couric interview slander? I'm really confused by that statement.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I expect Palin to do something impressive in 2012 simply because so many left-leaning bloggers, writers, commentators, etc. talk bad about her so much and at such length. It just seems odd to me that if you don't like a politician you go out of your way to keep giving them airtime and keep their name in public.

It also runs the risk of downplaying expectations. In her 2008 debate people were expecting a complete disaster, they really thought she'd stand their babbling half sentences that trailed off to nowhere like her Couric interview. Her actual performance was based entirely on meaningless talking points and was almost completely devoid of content, but she delivered it in a reasonably competent way, which was so much better than people had expected, so she came out a weird kind of winner.

I suspect that same thing is possible with a presidential run. People will predict so many screw ups that when she instead runs a somewhat competent campaign she'll end up getting a boost out of it. Almost certainly not enough to launch a halfwit who couldn't last one term as Alaska's governor into the Whitehouse, not even considering the economy, but enough to be much more competitive than she really deserves to be.

Stormrider wrote:One thing I noticed, the left's intelligencia will always telegraph who's positions they fear the most. Sarah Palin is about as diametrically opposite of liberalism as there is, hence they attack her.

Not really, no. They attack her because she's an easy target, because she's quite stupid and clearly incapable of holding any serious governmental position. They use this to try and represent the whole of the right wing, and more particularly the whole of the tea party. She's an easy target, so left wing pundits attack her, it's that simple.

Which is a problem, as the attacks from the leftwing give her a weird kind of legitmacy among the rightwing. Because everything is so polarised, what the left thinks is rubbish must really be good. Which is absurd, but polarised politics are absurd most of the time, so there you go.

You saw this polarization in Stormrider's initial post: by saying he was equally upset with the attacks on Palin compared to the attacks on Obama, he was basically equating the two sets of attacks.

Now, most of the attacks on Palin were accurate, or at least not easily disproved. Compare that to the attacks on Obama, which often range to absurd.

It's the right's biggest weapon now: "teach the controversy." Make it look like both sides could be correct, and then allow natural biases to take you home.

Polonius wrote:You saw this polarization in Stormrider's initial post: by saying he was equally upset with the attacks on Palin compared to the attacks on Obama, he was basically equating the two sets of attacks.

Now, most of the attacks on Palin were accurate, or at least not easily disproved. Compare that to the attacks on Obama, which often range to absurd.

It's the right's biggest weapon now: "teach the controversy." Make it look like both sides could be correct, and then allow natural biases to take you home.

Yeah, weirdly enough you even see post-modernist elements in there, something the right normally attacks the left over. Oh, we can't really know for certain what the truth, it's all just perspective and bias...

Polonius wrote:You saw this polarization in Stormrider's initial post: by saying he was equally upset with the attacks on Palin compared to the attacks on Obama, he was basically equating the two sets of attacks.

Now, most of the attacks on Palin were accurate, or at least not easily disproved. Compare that to the attacks on Obama, which often range to absurd.

It's the right's biggest weapon now: "teach the controversy." Make it look like both sides could be correct, and then allow natural biases to take you home.

Huh? I was saying that there's a bunch of mud flung everywhere (effectively) sorry for any miscommunication. Like people calling Obama a Muslim, which isn't true. Or saying that Palin said she could see Russia from her house, which she never said. That was Tina Fey.

What she actually said wasn't much better.

I can see the moon from land here in central Illinois, but that doesn't give me special insight into lunar geology.

dogma wrote:What she actually said wasn't much better.

I can see the moon from land here in central Illinois, but that doesn't give me special insight into lunar geology.

What? That you can see Russia from land in Alaska? Yeah, kind of pointless tidbit of info from her.

She would have been better off acknowledging that she wasn't familiar with foreign policy, but that she was working with some of the brightest minds in the field in order to get up to speed.

Stormrider wrote:Huh? I was saying that there's a bunch of mud flung everywhere (effectively) sorry for any miscommunication. Like people calling Obama a Muslim, which isn't true. Or saying that Palin said she could see Russia from her house, which she never said. That was Tina Fey.

Umm, one of those things was a completely groundless piece of nonsense where people freaked out because they thought someone believed in a different religion than their's, even though he very obviously didn't.

The other was a woman running for the vice-presidency who looked to demonstrate her foreign policy preparedness by noting her home state was geographically close to Russia.

The first is complete fantasy. The second was real thing, even if some people confused the satirist angle for the reality of the issue. They are not the same.

sebster wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Huh? I was saying that there's a bunch of mud flung everywhere (effectively) sorry for any miscommunication. Like people calling Obama a Muslim, which isn't true. Or saying that Palin said she could see Russia from her house, which she never said. That was Tina Fey.

Umm, one of those things was a completely groundless piece of nonsense where people freaked out because they thought someone believed in a different religion than their's, even though he very obviously didn't.

The other was a woman running for the vice-presidency who looked to demonstrate her foreign policy preparedness by noting her home state was geographically close to Russia.

The first is complete fantasy. The second was real thing, even if some people confused the satirist angle for the reality of the issue. They are not the same.

And? It was just an example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:She would have been better off acknowledging that she wasn't familiar with foreign policy, but that she was working with some of the brightest minds in the field in order to get up to speed.

Yeah, I agree. That whole McCain campaign was horribly run anyway.

Stormrider wrote:And? It was just an example.

And... this establishes that the claims made about Obama were not the same as the claims made about Palin. Which is something that someone could only consider reasonable if they're looking at this from a partisan position.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I expect Palin to do something impressive in 2012 simply because so many left-leaning bloggers, writers, commentators, etc. talk bad about her so much and at such length. It just seems odd to me that if you don't like a politician you go out of your way to keep giving them airtime and keep their name in public.

Attack ads?

I think the fact that she's viewed as a legitimate presidential candidate really says a lot for the state of intellectualism in American culture. <shrug>

VermGho5t wrote:Pretty damn sure liberal media will go nuts on conservatives they are actually afraid of getting power.

Corrected your typo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agroszkiewicz wrote:I think the fact that she's viewed as a legitimate presidential candidate really says a lot for the state of intellectualism in American culture. <shrug>

She's not and she aint.

Frazzled wrote:
She's not and she aint.

Surveys of Republican voters tend to indicate otherwise.

Just one example.

And before you talk about limited samples, not that you will, by far the best determiner of primary results is the opinion of registered partisans.

A lot can change in two years, of course.

I'd say that all the attention she's getting is a good thing, because she's less likely to get elected.

rubiksnoob wrote:I'd say that all the attention she's getting is a good thing, because she's less likely to get elected.

Yep. Evidently that reality show she has is bombing now. maybe we could tie in with the Walking Dead for season II.

Its perfect, Palin family hunting outing, out of touch for a week. Suddenly, Zombiepocalypse occurs. Would it be fun? You betcha!

Frazzled wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I'd say that all the attention she's getting is a good thing, because she's less likely to get elected.

Yep. Evidently that reality show she has is bombing now.

Who woulda thunkit?

Anyone with their own reality tv show should be disqualified from politics, forever.

maybe we could tie in with the Walking Dead for season II.

Its perfect, Palin family hunting outing, out of touch for a week. Suddenly, Zombiepocalypse occurs. Would it be fun? You betcha!

Hmmmm. . . . the sad thing is, this could work. And she would do it.

Even sadder is, I would watch it!

Stormrider wrote:

dogma wrote:What she actually said wasn't much better.

I can see the moon from land here in central Illinois, but that doesn't give me special insight into lunar geology.

What? That you can see Russia from land in Alaska? Yeah, kind of pointless tidbit of info from her.

You can, Big Diomede and Little Diomede are easily visible and lie in Russian and US territory respectively.

Being only 2 and a half miles apart and all.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

dogma wrote:What she actually said wasn't much better.

I can see the moon from land here in central Illinois, but that doesn't give me special insight into lunar geology.

What? That you can see Russia from land in Alaska? Yeah, kind of pointless tidbit of info from her.

You can, Big Diomede and Little Diomede are easily visible and lie in Russian and US territory respectively.

Being only 2 and a half miles apart and all.

Yeah, but the point is, who cares if you can see Russia? Whats the good of that? Even if Russia was a big problem to us now, seeing the barrens of Siberia isn't going to help much is it?

Kilkrazy wrote:Attack ads?

Attack ads run when both sides are running ads anyway, and are done comparing 'my guy' to 'the bad guy'. Sometimes they just mention 'the bad guy', but they're still run during a campaigning season when ads from 'my guy' are common. Sarah Palin isn't even running for anything now, but her name keeps getting put out there (one website that I like to read that has a definite democratic slant runs an article with her name in the title about twice a week).

I really think this technique is going to backfire, the people who would vote for Palin tend to not trust the sites that are slamming her anyway, so they won't believe the bad stuff said but her name keeps getting in the news.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:Anyone with their own reality tv show should be disqualified from politics, forever.

IMO all politicians should be required to be on a reality show. In addition, it should run like the reality shows on that episode of S1 of the new Dr. Who, where contestants who are voted off or lose are actually vaporized.