Currently viewing the tag: “Palin”
Washington (CNN) – Add Meghan McCain to the list of those who are not looking forward to HBO’s upcoming adaptation of “Game Change” – the 2009 book by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin that provided an inside look into the last presidential race.
In her regular column Friday for the website The Daily Beast, McCain suggests she found the book itself reviling and says she expects the movie to “crucify” her family and Sarah Palin.
“I expect my family and Sarah Palin to be nothing short of crucified,” the McCain daughter writes. “Another election is nearing and President Obama has publicly fallen from his stature as an infallible saint. It is in everyone’s best interest to exaggerate and manifest things that didn’t happen.”
Meghan McCain has long taken issue with the best-selling book, insisting many of the behind-the-scenes stories of her father’s failed presidential bid are either exaggerated or downright made up.
The movie is expected to focus on the book’s largely-negative portrayal of the McCain campaign, especially the reportedly hasty decision to pick then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the vice presidential nominee.
John McCain himself also made clear earlier this week he has no intention of watching upcoming adaptation, in which actor Ed Harris will star as the Arizona Republican.
“He’s a very fine actor and a great actor,” McCain said during an appearance on Fox News Sunday of Harris. “I obviously haven’t read the book, so I don’t think I’ll be watching the film.”
In addition to Harris, actress Julianne Moore will play the role of Sarah Palin and Woody Harrelson will depict McCain’s campaign manager, Steve Schmidt.
HBO is owned by Time Warner, CNN’s parent company.
Washington DC: After 45 minutes of contentious debate and a 15-minute vote, the House of Representatives passed a budget that allows the government to continue operating for one hour. In a straight party line vote, the House approved a $ 10 million cut in government spending and a variety of amendments.
At a hastily gathered press conference that took place even as the House was debating another one-hour CR, Speaker of the House Sarah Palin said, “You betcha this proves those naysayers wrong. The Tea Party can govern effectively while staying true to our principles. That’s why I’m going to be the next President of the United States.”
Earlier in the day, John Boehner resigned the Speakership in disgrace after it was revealed he had used taxpayer funds to pay for “tear duct enhancement” surgery.
In a surprise move, the entire Democratic caucus joined with the Tea Party members of the GOP caucus to vote in former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as Speaker, since the Constitution does not require the Speaker be a House member (see Office of the Clerk Member FAQ here).
A lachrymose Boehner congratulated Palin saying, “I’m impressed that Speaker Palin, who I’m sure will be the next president of the United States, was able to pass this one hour CR in 60 minutes.”
The CR had a number of unusual amendments:
- The Environmental Protection Agency is banned from regulating any pollutant.
- The House cafeteria can only serve polar bears and other endangered species.
- All House members, when referring to Speaker Palin, must assert that she will be the next president of the United States.
NOTE: I welcome reader suggestions for other April 1 amendments.
UPDATE: In a breaking story, Palin has stunned the political world again by resigning from her Speakership. In a speech from her home in Wasilla, Alaska — described by CBS News as “rambling and sometimes confusing” and by Fox News as “cogent and always coherent” — she said:
Hi America, I appreciate speaking directly TO you, the people I serve, as your Speaker. That’s what Speakers do. They speak. But I’ve been doing enough “Speaking” and now just want to “speak.” To you. America.
People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing’s more important to me than speaking. Speaking for all Americans is the greatest honor I could imagine. Other than another speaking at a political dinner for $ 100,000.
This decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life – my Facebook friends. I also polled my family, where the count was unanimous… well, in response to asking: “Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children’s future from OUTSIDE the Speakers’s office?” It was four “yes’s” and one “hell yeah!” The “hell yeah” sealed it – though I sent that one to bed without dinner for swearing. Jeez.
Now, despite this, I don’t want any American dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this REAL “climate change” that began a few hours ago … no, we NEED hardworking, average Americans fighting for what’s right! And I will support you because we need YOU and YOU can effect change, as long as you quit your jobs now, like me.
In the words of General MacArthur said, “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”
Also, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “a rolling stone gathers no moss.” And having lived in Alaska most of my life, I can’t tell you how much I hate gathering moss. Thank you.
Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr
War Presidents of the United States of America
The White House Insider and his friend from Ulster had been drinking heavily when we overheard their latest discussion about Barack Hussein Obama. They despise Obama more since he did not “lead from the front” and “attack Madman Gaddafi”.
“The thing is Ulsterman” said the White House Insider “if Sarah Palin was presidentess, hick, she wouldn’t have retreated but would be reloading now. Colat… colater… clatroll… killing innocent people is all part of war and only a pussy would care…”
“Hang on a minute” replied the man from Ulster “I must just nip to the jon.”
We watched the Ulsterman stagger to use the White House Insider’s rather smelly en suite facilities. While he was away the White House Insider continued to talk to himself but his mumbling was so deep that it was difficult to understand his comments. The only words we could decipher were “Palin” and “President” and the phrase “I’d give her one”. We cannot say for sure what (if anything) this meant.
Back Room Warmongers
There was no sound of the toilet flushing to herald the Ulsterman staggering back to the table, the glasses, the bottle of hooch and his drinking partner. Apart from the splatters of urine which now decorated his trouser fronts Ulsterman came back the way he went. He was speaking passionately and reminded my boss of the Reverend Ian Paisley talking about Catholics. The Ulsterman said:
“Blood libel, that’s what we want and that’s what me darling Palin would supply”
The White House Insider belched in agreement and the man from Ulster concluded:
“Supply and demand Whitey, supply and demand. War is just about supply and demand.” After this utterance the Ulsterman went to abuse the en suite again. He didn’t return and we got bored listening to the mumbles of our own madman, the White House Insider.
Following its controversial decision to ban Andrew Breitbart from publishing articles at its front page, the Huffington Post has found itself in quite a pickle now that one of its regular contributors, comedian Bill Maher, made disgustingly vulgar references to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
As NewsBusters previously reported, Breitbart made some comments about President Obama's former green czar Van Jones that precipitated the following hypocritical statement from HuffPo spokesman Mario Ruiz last Thursday (readers are warned of vulgar content in full article):
The Huffington Post is committed to fostering a lively and often provocative debate about the issues of the day and encourages a wide range of voices from all perspectives to participate. Andrew Brietbart’s [sic] false ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched. As a result, we will no longer feature his posts on the front page.
He is welcome to continue publishing his work on HuffPost provided it adheres to our editorial guidelines, as the two posts he published on HuffPost did — guidelines that include a strict prohibition on ad hominem attacks. Our decision today recognizes that placing posts on the front page is an editorial call that elevates some posts over others, and is an indication of how seriously we take these judgment calls.
Just what were Breitbart's supposedly offensive comments?
Van Jones is a commie punk. He was exposed to a great extent because of the hard journalism that was done at my website, that exposed him as a guy who was an unvetted liability to the Obama administration. He was forced to step down because of my journalistic work. […]
I believe that Van Jones, and Color of Change, and ACORN poison the black community with propaganda that divides this country. Van Jones is a human toxin, ACORN was a human toxin. These are poisonous, venomous forces within the American experience. I will expose them like the cockroaches that they are.
By contrast, Maher on March 18 called Palin a "twat" and on March 27 called her a "cunt."
Which is worse: calling a man a "commie punk" or a woman a "cunt"? One would certainly think the latter, yet HuffPo has yet to comment.
With this in mind, I sent co-founder Arianna Huffington and editor Roy Sekoff the following email message Tuesday:
Ms. Huffington and Mr. Sekoff:
Noel Sheppard here from NewsBusters. I'm wondering if Bill Maher calling former Alaska governor Sarah Palin a "twat" and a "cunt" violates the Huffington Post's "tenets of debate and civil discourse" that Mario Ruiz noted in his statement concerning Andrew Breitbart's banning from your front page.
One would think such vulgar slurs are far worse than anything Breitbart said to the Daily Caller concerning Van Jones.
Is Maher going to be banned from your front page? When are you planning on notifying your readers of this decision, and if not, why not?
Noel Sheppard/NewsBusters.org
After a number of hours went by without a response, I sent another one to Huffington and Sekoff but separately this time:
Ms. Huffington,
This is Noel Sheppard, the Associate Editor of NewsBusters trying for the second time to get a comment from you regarding Bill Maher being a front page contributor to the Huffington Post. As you know, in the past twelve days, Maher has called former Alaska governor Sarah Palin a “twat” and a “cunt.”
Your Mario Ruiz in his statement concerning Andrew Breitbart’s banning from the Post’s front page said Breitbart’s comments in the Daily Caller about Van Jones had violated the “tenets of debate and civil discourse.” We at NewsBusters would like an explanation as to why Maher’s attacks on Palin aren’t at least as bad as Breitbart’s comments regarding Jones. As we see Maher’s offense as far worse, given the Post’s rules, we would like to know either why you disagree or when Maher is going to be banned from your front page.
We would like a response concerning this matter at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Noel Sheppard/NewsBusters.org
Having still not received a response, on Wednesday morning I sent a roughly similar version of the following to HuffPo reporters Jason Linkins, Sam Stein, and the spokesman that issued the Breitbart statement, Mario Ruiz:
Mr. Ruiz,
This is Noel Sheppard, the Associate Editor of NewsBusters trying to get a comment from you regarding Bill Maher being a front page contributor to the Huffington Post.
As you know, in the past twelve days, Maher has called former Alaska governor Sarah Palin a “twat” and a “cunt.” In your statement concerning Andrew Breitbart’s banning from the Post’s front page, you said Breitbart’s comments about Van Jones in the Daily Caller violated the “tenets of debate and civil discourse.”
We at NewsBusters would like an explanation as to why Maher’s attacks on Palin aren’t at least as bad as Breitbart’s comments regarding Jones. As we see Maher’s offense as far worse, given the Post’s rules, we would like to know either why you disagree or when Maher is going to be banned from your front page.
We would like a response concerning this matter at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Noel Sheppard/NewsBusters.org
Later in the day Wednesday, having only received a response from Linkins who advised me to contact Ruiz, I sent the following to the entire group:
Arianna Huffington et al,
I have been trying for several days to get an answer concerning the Huffington Post’s position on Bill Maher as a contributor given his recent vulgar attacks on Sarah Palin and your decision to ban Andrew Breitbart from your front page due to comments he made regarding Van Jones. To date, no one has responded.
NewsBusters is going to be running a piece concerning this matter Thursday and would like an opinion about it from someone within your organization. If I don’t hear back, we have no choice but to run the piece without your input while advising our readers of your silence.
Sincerely,
Noel Sheppard/NewsBusters.org
Sadly, as of 11:00 AM, I still have no response, not even from HuffPo spokesman Ruiz. Is this the kind of transparency we can expect from AOL/Huffington Post in the future?
Of course, I realize Arianna et al are in a very tough spot. They made what was clearly an absurd statement about "tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched" when everyone in the industry knows their website is filled with hateful rhetoric and ad hominem attacks against conservatives on almost a daily basis.
The laughter at Ruiz's statement throughout the blogosphere on both sides of the aisle was deafening.
Complicating matters further was one of their popular contributors the day after Breitbart was canned making a vulgar slur at Palin and another one nine days later.
As most people know, Huffington has been friends with Maher for years. She was a regular guest on his Comedy Central program "Politically Incorrect" appearing in an ongoing gag with Al Franken called "Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows."
Maybe more importantly, Maher is a darling of the Left. Would Huffington dare do anything to him like she did to Breitbart?
Unfortunately, not doing so totally invalidates the reason given by Ruiz for Breitbart's demotion.
No wonder I didn't get any replies to my email messages as I'm sure these folks hope this matter is going to just go away as quickly as possible – but they shouldn't count on it.
Maher's vitriolic attacks have been in the sights of writers on both sides of the aisle for years. The folks at HuffPo should know that any time one of his comments crosses the "tenets of debate and civil discourse" line they have set for their contributors, the blogosphere will be asking why he's still a front page contributor at their website.
More importantly, their continued silence regarding this glaring hypocrisy will act to reduce whatever journalistic integrity and credibility they claim to strive for potentially leading AOL and its shareholders to seriously question their investment.
Despite promises made last week, Sarah Palin is still complaining about what she claims is “unfair” press coverage:
The Daily Caller’s Chris Moody contacted Palin for a response to reports that her reality show, Sarah Palin’s Alaska, got $ 1.2 million in state tax credits. Palin demanded that Moody print her entire 650-word response to the news. And he did-but only on the second page of the article. So Palin took to Facebook to rant about “having to set the record straight on my Facebook page yet again is further proof that the media can’t be trusted even to print a statement in a manner that people can read.”
Talking Points Memo’s Benjy Sarlin says the exchange offers a window into how Palin’s staff deals with the press. Moody told Sarlin that he was surprised by the Facebook post since he’d printed her whole statement. Moody told Sarlin that Palin’s spokesman would only provide at statement from Palin if Moody ran the entire thing-extremely rare in political reporting. “After some back and forth, I said I would write the story that accurately represented her view, with the full quotes available for readers. Her spokesman said that would be fine,” Moody says. But it wasn’t. “Goodness, cleaning up the sloppiness of reporters could be a full time job,” Palin groused.
At Salon, Alex Pareene says the episode offers a nice lesson in modern press relations. “Palin made the Caller jump through a ridiculous hoop to even obtain her self-serving statement, which it used to provide balance to what had been printed elsewhere as a negative, anti-Palin story, and its reward for jumping through that hoop was that she declared war. She is a very classy individual.”
Yep, that’s our Sarah. The difference is that it’s becoming evident that he act is wearing thin.
Stephen Colbert decides to start his own PAC, “Being a pundit these days is not enough anymore. If you want to be a political playa’ in 2012 you need a PAC.”
Jon Stewart wants to know which 2012 GOPer will be able to connect with, “Base-istan. Base-istan of course that rarest of countries where somehow every part of the country is in the middle.”
Today’s Must See Moment — Fast forward to 2:41 when former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin introduces a new word to the English language. Then let us know which “Palin-ism” is you’re favorite in our Late Night Poll.
Take our Late Night Poll after the jump!
Back in February, I noted that the Anchorage Daily News has reported that Sarah Palin’s TLC reality show had received subsidies from the State of Alaska under a program designed to encourage filmmakers to come to the state. The story languished for a month or so, but was recently picked up by some fiscal conservatives who criticized Palin for both taking the money and supporting the program when she was Governor:
After an analyst at the Tax Foundation posted a blurb on the group’s blog linking to the piece Tuesday, Palin faced a fresh heap of criticism from Washington conservative pundits who may have been a bit late to the fight, but were not shy to throw punches.
(…)
But in a political age where it’s controversial in many circles to defend public funding of National Public Radio, critics panned Palin for supporting a measure that forced taxpayers to foot the bill for a private media project after many statements from the former governor in support of a government that only plays a limited role in the economy.
“I’d bet, like many politicians, Palin’s views on the proper role of government becomes more flexible as it comes closer to her own interests,” wrote the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney on Tuesday.
Jim Geraghty of National Review said that the reality show’s subsidy was “ridiculous” and that the policy was “problematic for a crusader for small government to end up collecting a seven-figure paycheck from an endeavor that received a seven-figure subsidy,” while Peter Suderman of the libertarian Reason Magazine cracked: “In 2008, Sarah Palin, then the Governor of Alaska, signed a special tax credit for filmmakers into law. … Who’s benefiting from that tax subsidy now? … none other than Sarah Palin.”
Palin, of course, took to her Facebook page and played the victim card:
This bill was not some secret big government agenda. These Alaskan legislators just wanted Alaska to be able to compete with the many other states that offer similar incentives. As I noted in my statement (which was curiously buried by The Daily Caller – whose editor-in-chief was recently called on the carpet for publicly using a degrading term to describe women), I can’t speak for the film tax credit programs in other states, but the program in Alaska has been effective. The bipartisan legislation I signed into law in 2008 was borne out of elected lawmakers’ frustration with the fact that shows and films about Alaska were mostly filmed elsewhere.
They wanted to incentivize production companies to film in Alaska instead of Canada, Washington state, or Maine. Their bill worked, and as the legislation’s supporters will testify, the state’s economy enjoys the benefits of having this production money circulating right here at home. It was so successful that state lawmakers now want to renew the film production tax credits for another ten years. Keep in mind that we don’t have a state income tax, state sales tax, or state property tax in Alaska. Our state government is predominately funded by oil and gas revenue. Essentially we are using revenue generated from the development of Alaska’s natural resources in order to diversify our economy and create jobs beyond just resource development. Not only does this help promote a new film industry in Alaska, it obviously also has the added benefit of encouraging our tourism industry.
These shows and films about Alaska act as perfect tourist advertisements for our state. People come here to experience what they see on the shows filmed here. The dramatic increase in Alaska-based television shows and films are testament to the fact that this legislation worked, and it’s exciting to see our state showcased and appreciated. There has been more film productions here than ever before, and the economic benefit of filming here exceeds the tax credit.
Whether this is true or not is debatable, but it doesn’t address the primary point that by supporting programs like this while claiming to be a fiscal conservative you are being, quite obviously, hypocritical
A controversy has percolated in the blogosphere over Palin’s TV show getting tax subsidies, especially her own TV show.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Tuesday cherry-picked an "O'Reilly Factor" segment to drum up a feud between Fox News's top prime time host and the former Alaska governor.
Five sentences about Sarah Palin pulled from a six and a half minute segment ridiculing President Obama for not scheduling Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates as guests on last weekend's "Fox News Sunday" led "The Last Word" host to conclude that O'Reilly is now assuming a role in Republican politics "bullying the nuts off the stage to make room for viable candidates" (videos follow with transcripts and commentary):
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, HOST: Sarah Palin’s slide off the Republican a-list continues this week with her Fox News boss taking a swipe at her even going as far as to compare her to President Obama.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL O’REILLY: The same thing's happening to Sarah Palin. Her favorability among Republicans and Independents has dropped four points in a month. And the reason I think it's dropping is because she's not engaging directly. You know, when I had her on this program, I asked her some specific answer — questions she didn't want to answer. She wanted to the give a speech, this, that, and the other thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’DONNELL: Bill O’Reilly, the communicator-in-chief at Fox News also found fault with Tea Party Republican Christine O’Donnell when she ran for the senate in Delaware. So O'Reilly has found, has O’Reilly found his calling in Republican politics, bullying the nuts off the stage to make room for viable candidates? Joining me now is Alex Wagner, Huffington Post correspondent and MSNBC analyst. Alex, thanks for joining us tonight.
ALEX WAGNER, HUFFINGTON POST: Thanks for having me.
O’DONNELL: I think this O’Reilly thing is serious business the way he talked about Sarah Palin. I don't think he would have done that a while ago. She’s a very valuable asset, or has been considered such for Fox News, but O'Reilly is a much more valuable asset for Fox News, and he seems to be saying, “Don't pay attention to the freaks.” I think he wants people to concentrate on real viable Republicans.
What was interesting is that nowhere in this four minute segment did O'Donnell mention what the context of O'Reilly's comment about Palin was.
As NewsBusters previously reported, despite Clinton and Gates going on ABC's "This Week," CBS's "Face the Nation," and NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday to discuss the events in Libya, they were not offered to appear on Fox's political talk show. This led "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace to scold the administration for this oversight.
On Monday, O'Reilly brought former CBS reporter Bernie Goldberg on to discuss the matter during which came the five sentences about Palin.
O'Donnell chose not to inform his viewers Tuesday what O'Reilly and Goldberg were actually talking about, and neither did his guest. This was particularly curious as the outlet Wagner works for, the Huffington Post, did a piece Tuesday concerning this matter wherein the author at least had the decency to report the full context of the Palin snippet:
O'Reilly brought Palin up while discussing the recent flap over the White House's decision not to send Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates onto "Fox News Sunday," even though the Secretaries of State and Defense went on "Meet the Press," "This Week" and "Face the Nation." Host Chris Wallace brought the issue up on air, criticizing the White House for its decision.
Speaking to weekly guest Bernie Goldberg, O'Reilly said that the decision by the White House not to go on Fox made no sense to him.
"I can't really figure this out," he said. "The Fox audience is divided on the Libyan action. There isn't any anti-Obama juggernaut on this network…I don't get why they want to stoke this up."
Goldberg said that he thought the move would hurt Obama politically with independents, because they would see him as ducking critical questions.
That's when O'Reilly brought Palin up.
As such, the organization Wagner now works for was far more honest with its readers than she or O'Donnell were with his viewers.
After some give and take, "The Last Word" host offered another tenuous premise:
O’DONNELL: Isn't it proof that O’Reilly is the absolute king of her Fox News world, that she has not immediately tweeted some sort of attack of Bill O’Reilly for slighting her in any way? If anyone else had said that, there would be the Palin attack machine would immediately react.
Or, the fact that Palin hasn’t responded means that she didn’t take these five sentences by O’Reilly in a lengthy segment ridiculing the President as being much of a slight on her or anything warranting her attention.
Sadly, the conspiracy-minded O'Donnell and Wagner didn’t consider that possibility.
For those interested, here's the full video and transcript of O'Reilly's discussion with Goldberg Monday evening:
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly. In the "Weekdays with Bernie" segment tonight, yesterday Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates went on ABC, CBS, and NBC talking about Libya. They avoided "FOX News Sunday." Chris Wallace was not pleased.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: The Obama team felt no need to explain to the millions of you who watch this program and FOX News why they have sent U.S. servicemen and -women into combat. We thought you'd like to know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Joining us now from Miami, the purveyor of BernardGoldberg.com, Mr. Goldberg.
So, was it was a big dis, disrespectful to FOX News?
BERNIE GOLDBERG, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I wouldn't choose the word "disrespectful." I would say it was — "dumb" is a better word. I think it was a dumb decision not to — not to go on FOX.
First of all, if — and I'm underlining the word "if" — if this was an honest decision to simply go with the more traditional media, the White House has to understand that this is the 21st century, and there's a lot more out there than just ABC, NBC, and CBS. FOX matters, and it matters a lot. That's why I don't think it was that.
I think the war between the White House and FOX is continuing. I — I don't think — I think it cooled down for a while, but it never went away.
The idea that these smart people — and I'm not saying that sarcastically — smart people at the White House either don't understand or refuse to understand the distinction between partisan anchors, in some cases rabidly partisan anchors, on FOX and a straight shooter, hard news solid journalist like Chris Wallace is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, to not understand that distinction is really dumb.
O'REILLY: Well, Ted Koppel — Ted Koppel was on CNN yesterday and didn't seem to understand it either.
But to be fair to the Obama White House, they didn't do CNN. CNN has a bunch of morning shows, Sunday morning shows. I think they hid behind the fact that, well, we didn't do cable. We just did broadcast. But as you pointed out, "FOX News Sunday" is on broadcast.
GOLDBERG: FOX is on — FOX is on the broadcast network, right.
O'REILLY: I can't really figure this out, because — here's why I can't figure it out. The FOX audience is divided on the Libyan action. They're divided on it. BillOReilly.com polling, FOX News polling, very close. There isn't any anti-Obama juggernaut on this network.
GOLDBERG: Right.
O'REILLY: Some of us, like me, support the action. Some others don't. But it's evenly divided. So I don't — I don't get why they want to stoke this up.
GOLDBERG: Neither do I. But from a — I'll say this, from a political point of view, it doesn't make any sense.
Barack Obama is going to need the independents that he lost in 2010. A lot of independents watch the FOX News Channel. Barack Obama won't win any Republicans who watch FOX, but he has a shot at some of those independents.
But when he disrespects, to use the word that you used in the lead-in, of FOX News, and more importantly, when he disrespects the viewers, who hear Chris say what he said about the White House or — and the administration, and what he correctly said, I don't think that endears the independents to Barack Obama in 2012.
O'REILLY: No.
GOLDBERG: So, politically, I don't think it's a smart move.
O'REILLY: You know, it's interesting, because I just did this in the no-spin news we have for BillOReilly.com premium members after the program, the no-spin news that I don't cover.
The same thing's happening to Sarah Palin. Her favorability among Republicans and independents has dropped 4 points in a month. And the reason I think it's dropping is because she's not engaging directly. You know, when I had her on this program, I asked her some specific answer — questions she didn't want to answer, and she wanted to the give a speech, this, that, and the other thing.
GOLDBERG: Right.
O'REILLY: So I think you're absolutely right that Barack Obama, if he looks like he doesn't want to go into the tougher venues — and I don't think Wallace would be any tougher than the other guys — that people are going to say, "Look, you're not confident in your position." That's not leadership.
GOLDBERG: I rest my case, your honor.
O'REILLY: All right. So what you're saying to the audience is I summed it up so beautifully that you're at a loss for words?
GOLDBERG: Something like that.
O'REILLY: OK.
Did you know that we’re in a “squirmish.” (She should refutiate that statement).
On Fox last night, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made a slight error on the cost of the Libyan intervention: a mere 700 percent too much. John McCain certainly knows how to pick quality people.
This may be the first time that this particular permutation of “apology” has been offered for dropping a C-bomb on someone. A forthright apology would be one thing, a “sorry if you were offended” dismissal would be another, but he’s almost trying to mesh the two. E.g., yeah, she really is a c*** — but […]
Governor Sarah Palin articulated what is the frustration among many over what is our end goal in Libya.
In an interview with Greta, Palin responded thoughtfully over this.
Last night on Fox News, Greta van Susteren hosted former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) to discuss what Palin termed the “squirmish” in Libya. True to form, the former governor was reckless with basic facts and casually septupled the cost of U.S. intervention. According to figures released by the Pentagon, the intervention cost $ 600 million in the first seven days. Palin, however, claimed that the no-fly zone — which, for the record, she called for — cost that amount daily:
PALIN: Yes, that’s — that’s a good question. And that’s the $ 600 million dollar-a-day question that is being asked now because that’s the cost incurred by Americans as we support the no-fly zone, which, of course, the no-fly zone, the intervention or enactment is turning into more than that.
Watch it:
It’s important to debate the cost of intervention in Libya, but cavalierly claiming the cost is seven times higher than it actually is does not advance that discussion.
Notably, Palin also urged President Obama to undertake action to remove Col. Muammar Gaddafi from power — which would presumably cost much more money. “With Gaddafi still in power, if we’re not going to oust him via killing or capturing, then there is no acceptable end state,” Palin said. “Well, if we were going to protect civilians, doesn’t that mean, then, getting rid of the bad guy?”
President Obama explained in his address to the nation last night that action to remove Gaddafi would splinter the current international coalition, which is currently sharing the cost of intervention, and would also likely require the introduction of U.S. ground forces and a lengthy battle. “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq…That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya,” Obama said. Perhaps Palin’s $ 600 million per day was a proposed budget for regime change?
After comedian Bill Maher referred to Sarah Palin as a derogatory term for a vagina a little over week a ago, NewsBusters asked, "Can the dreaded C-word be far behind?"
According to the Dallas Voice, this happened on Sunday while Maher was "performing" at the Winspear Opera House (photo courtesy Reuters):
It’s that fearlessness — he acknowledged that some people would probably be uncomfortable with some of his remarks about religion, not to mention calling Sarah Palin a “cunt” (“there’s just no other word for her”) — that makes Maher the most dangerous person in comedy.
For those unfamiliar, the Winspear Opera House is indeed where the Dallas Opera performs.
Seems a metaphysical certitude that word isn't uttered on that stage very often.
The reviewer – writing at the self-described "Premier Media Source For LGBT Texas" – noted:
Maher spoke the truth for a nearly two-hour set, and, in my mind, established himself as the pre-eminent political commentator of a generation. He’s a comedian, too, of course. But really, he’s a voice.
And that's what makes him dangerous, not just to the right but to all Americans.
Maher is indeed doing political commentary. When he gets interviewed by CNN, MSNBC, or any of the broadcast network news programs, it's not to do one-liners.
It is instead for him to offer his political views about current events in a venue made for such a thing.
Yet, when he makes a comment that crosses the line, he'll conveniently hide behind the comedian veil and folks on the Left will wittingly give him a pass.
On Saturday's "Fox News Watch," liberal New York Post commentator Kirsten Powers said, "I have to say, he's a comedian and it's hard for me to get up in arms about comedians on cable shows saying things. It's not as if it happens — it's not Chris Matthews that said it, for example, I would have a problem with it or somebody — a member of Congress, maybe, but I really, I feel like this kind of stuff just gets a little out of control. He is a comedian who says a lot of crazy stuff."
In fairness, Powers walked this back a bit Monday night when Fox's Greta Van Susteren told her that Maher has defended women's rights.
In a recent "Real Time" installment after the riots began in Egypt, the host said that for lasting political change to occur in this region, there's going to have to be a sexual revolution that improves the treatment of women.
But apparently to Maher, such equality doesn't begin at home, for he has in the past eleven days called Palin a t-t, a bimbo along with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), and now the dreaded C-word which to women is like the N-word to African-Americans.
Once again, I point my finger at the National Organization for Women.
By not specifically admonishing Maher, "Real Time," and HBO in its weak defense of Palin last week, this hypocritically self-described women's organization was implicitly telling this so-called comedian and the network he represents it's just fine to make sexist attacks on this woman – and conceivably all conservative women – no matter how vulgar.
Welcome to the new and NOW-approved feminism, America – where liberal women's rights are to be defended while conservative women's rights are to be trampled on like a restaurant door mat.
(H/T Daily Caller via NB's motherbelt)
