Wasilla’s Hillbilly Heroin
Tweet
Bristol Palin’s boyfriend’s mom seems to have been arranging an Oxycontin hookup, which led to her arrest. Couldn’t they just have called up Rush Limbaugh?
124 Responses to “Wasilla’s Hillbilly Heroin”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“Before you die there is something you should know about us, Lone Star. I am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate.”
“What does that make us?”
“Absolutely nothing!”
Remember, folks, questions about Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and Rod Blagojevich are off limits to Obama, because of guilt by association.
But Sarah Palin’s daughter’s fiance’s mother is, of course, national news.
Pull the other leg for a while, Oliver. That one’s getting sore.
J.
Remember, folks, the people who engaged in non-stop idle and fantastical speculation about teh Mighty Cleeeeeenis for years and years, are now telling you that questions (that have already been answered) about the non-association of Obama with the Blago scandal are teh most important questions EVAR!!!!!one!!!, and need to be focused on to the exclusion of everything else until Obama gets inaugurated.
After which, Republican’t idiots like Jay Tea will think of some more unreality-based faux scandals to focus on.
Funny how Jay Tea was (and continues to be) surprisingly silent about the googleplex of scandals that the Putsch administration has engaged in. Nope – no worry about the non-coverage of acutal scandals by actual presidents who have been actually presidentering. We’ve got an incoming Democratic president! Start up the faux outrage from conservative media about every little thing that the incoming adminstration does, and pay no attention to they way it has studiously ignored the Republican’ts!
Nice hypocrisy you gots there…
Isn’t Bristol’s baby like 3 months overdue?
Remember, folks, questions about Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and Rod Blagojevich are off limits to Obama, because of guilt by association.
Remember, folks, little Jay never made any comments about Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and Rod Blagojevich.
…hmmm, speaking of “guilt by association,” maybe Sarah can just make a statement about how her daughter is “palling around” with drug dealers.
“God gives us our relatives. Thank god we can choose our friends.”
Or pastors.
Or real-estate buddies.
Or candidates to co-chair campaigns for.
And Tom, I thought MY side was the one that was always obsessed with Clinton, bringing him up into any discussion…
So, who would like to explain just how the unsavory habits of this woman reflects in the least on Palin? “She should have raised her daughter better, so she wouldn’t associate with the children of undesirables?”
Wow. Guilt by association, unconstitutional “corruption of blood,” and class warfare all in one. Oh, and racial/ethnic stereotyping, too — “hillbilly heroin.”
Would this be a good time to bring up Obama’s own history of drug use?
J.
Would this be a good time to bring up Obama’s own history of drug use?
If it makes you feel better, knock yourself out. Point of distinction, though; Obama doesn’t do it anymore. Bristol’s mother-in-law still does.
C’mon, Mr. Tea.
Let’s imagine one of Mr. Obama’s daughters became pregnant by the son of a drug trafficker.
You don’t think that would inspire a bit of discussion? You don’t think ‘wingers like yourself would be pushing and trampling each other to question Mr. Obama’s fitness to fix the country’s problems when he can’t even watch over his own family?
Really?
Quaker, I speak for myself only. But I can say with absolute certainly that I wouldn’t be discussing it. I have been entirely consistent on that principle: the children of politicians are off-limits until they inject themselves into the national debate.
Oliver, on the other hand, has his own standards: the children of Republicans are fair game, the children of Democrats are off-limits. Consider how he’s treated Bristol Palin and the Bush twins versus the criminal record of, say, Al Gore III…
J.
LOL,
How curious, the fascination on the left with drug use.
If passing a drug test was necessary to vote who would have won? Obama or McCain.
Amused, that’s because it’s about TEH HYPOCRISY!!!!!!! To the left, that is the ultimate sin. Democrats can do the most reprehensible things imaginable, but that’s all right because they never pretended to be anything but scumbags. It’s the Republicans who DARE TO SAY THAT SOME THINGS ARE BAD who must be exposed and hounded and driven out of office.
That’s why, for example, Patrick Kennedy’s assault of the airport security officer or drug-fueled car wreck weren’t career enders. That’s why the media covered up John Edwards’ affair with a woman he paid off through his campaign.
In that light, it all makes perfect sense…
J.
Jay Tea:
Yeah, kinda.
You say, “but that’s all right because they never pretended to be anything but scumbags.”
I say, “but sometimes it’s less reprehensible because they never pretended to be the arbiter of the Nation’s moral code.”
Two ways of looking at it.
But I can assure you that John Edwards (who I donated quite a bit of my hard-earned money to) has had a “career-ender” as far as I’m concerned. Not because he had an affair, lots of people do. But for the HYPOCRISY of his pretense to be the ultimate family man, and the ARROGANCE to think he could get away with it. He let me down, he let the country down, and I thank God he wasn’t in a position to let the Democratic Party down. That motherfucker is dead to me, as he is or should be to most Democrats.
Amused Observer, Dec 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am
LOL,
How curious, the fascination on the left with drug use.
Almost as curious as the selective outrage and seemingly limitless hypocrisy from Reich Wing morans like the amusingly irrational obsevrer
If passing a drug test was necessary to vote who would have won? Obama or McCain.
If we were testing for illegal drugs, I believe that both of them would have passed. Are you trying, in your pitiful, hypocritical, Republican’t way, to insinuate that one of the presidential candidates are currently on illegal drugs? If so, then why not come out and say it instead of engaging in weaselly innuendo that has no basis in reality?
If we were testing for Ambiben, would McSenile pass the test? Would Obama?
So, who would like to explain just how the unsavory habits of this woman reflects in the least on Palin? “She should have raised her daughter better, so she wouldn’t associate with the children of undesirables?”
Well, the fact that Palin tried to use the power of the governor’s office to bury the details of the arrest (which would be – what’s the word I’m looking for here? oh yeah – illegal) might have something to do with why I am a bit concerned about it. And, I, too, only speak for myself – no matter how often mental midgets like the Reich Wing commenters here try and point to me (and any other non-Republican’t) as being the Voice of the Left.
Well I think Bruce has said it. It’s not the act, it’s the complete lack of humility and willingness to cast stones when one’s own house is severely out of order.
That said, this of course can’t and shouldn’t be ‘used’ politically against the Palins. The connection is tangential at best. Had Gov. Palin been trafficking Oxycontin, different story. Now whether the Republicans would exercise an ounce of restraint were the parties reversed… I have my doubts, personally.
Bruce has most of it, but he’s missing one key element: look at Edwards’ enablers in the press. How many press outlets blew off the allegations simply because it was the National Enquirer? Why did the LA Times go to such great lengths to avoid the story?
It’s truly educational to compare how much ink was spent on the Edwards story before the Enquirer came out with pictures, versus the ink spent on other so-called “scandals.” The New York Times put out a front page article on an “affair” McCain never had with a lobbyist on the thinnest possible evidence. Consider all the stupid-ass stories about Sarah Palin’s youngest son’s parentage.
Bruce might be a smidgen closer to the truth with his explanation, but I prefer my more inflammatory (and, in my opinion, more memorable) “we never pretended that we weren’t scumbags” paraphrasing. They both essentially mean the same, anyway.
J.
It’s tomatoes and tomahtoes unless Tom’s allegation is correct. Is it? I honestly don’t know.
LOL,
Tom work on those reading comprehension skills.
“Are you trying, in your pitiful, hypocritical, Republican’t way, to insinuate that one of the presidential candidates are currently on illegal drugs? If so, then why not come out and say it instead of engaging in weaselly innuendo that has no basis in reality?”
No Tom I’m trying to say in a fairly direct manner that voters on the left are more likely to use illegal drugs than voters on the right. Certainly there is drug use on the right but I believe it is higher on the left than the right.
The New York Times put out a front page article on an “affair” McCain never had with a lobbyist on the thinnest possible evidence.
Did you even read the story? The Times did not assert that an affair took place. Having a trouble with basic facts again, Mr. Tea?
And what is the basis for your “belief”, AO?
I “believe” that you, yourself, are a puppykilling Nazi pederast. So what’s your proof?
You show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
Trooper Says Election Delayed Alaska Drug Case
Quaker,
When did you stop beating your wife?
Even you can’t possibly actually believe your own bullshit.
Do you have a question, loser?
1) Tom, I’d replace the “a” in “Republican’t” with a different vowel, and also lose the apostrophe. Especially in regards to JT, Farris, and AO. Speaking of whom…
2) Kiss mine, too. All three of you, and learn to love the reality of President Barack Obama.
Quaker,
Intellectual dishonesty is your stock in trade. Are you willing to stand by your assertation that the New York Times did not mean to leave the strong impression that McCain was having an affair as an election tactic to harm him?
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds.
But I can say with absolute certainly that I wouldn’t be discussing it. I have been entirely consistent on that principle: the children of politicians are off-limits until they inject themselves into the national debate.
I call bullshit.
No Tom I’m trying to say in a fairly direct manner that voters on the left are more likely to use illegal drugs than voters on the right.
Who were you accusing of generalizations before? Oh, that’s right, Oxycontin isn’t illegal, per se.
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds.
Let me just add, AO,
Fuck
you.
As we all know, the NY Times never pushes stories that are designed to hurt Democrats. And they certainly never use Republican sources to print propaganda on the front page. No sir.
Scratch a conservative and he whines about it for fucking YEARS.
Yeesh. Leave the chest thumping at the door, AO.
Alright, so the Times blows it in favor of Reps now and then, in favor of Dems now and then. Can anybody name a better paper? Honestly. If you can, I’d read that one.
Are you willing to stand by your assertation that the New York Times did not mean to leave the strong impression that McCain was having an affair as an election tactic to harm him?
I’ll stand by my assertion that neither you nor Mr. Tea have so much as an atom of evidence to support your claim. Whatever rationalizations you make to justify your personal animosities don’t qualify.
As for this:
Intellectual dishonesty is your stock in trade.
Tu quoque, jerkface.
LOL,
Parthenon, For some reason I’m a bit peevish today. I read an interesting article by a guy from the LA Times,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein26-2008dec26,0,5178459.column
I agree with much of his post and feel like calling a spade a spade.
Duros,
Did you go to school with Tom? Neither one of you seems to be able to read very well.
Quaker,
Let me see if I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that the general concencus regarding the New York Times article about McCain and that cute little lobbyist wasn’t insinuating an affair? You are either intellectually dishonest or extremely dense.
Ollie,
Could you propose a metric by which we could measure the New York Times for liberal or conservative bias? That is basically your dayjob.
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds.
“Consider how he’s treated Bristol Palin and the Bush twins versus the criminal record of, say, Al Gore III.”
I don’t see anything wrong with treating the Bush twins differently than Al Fore’s son. Al Gore wasn’t president when his offspring’s illegal acts were taking place. The same CANNOT be said for the Bush twins (with their underage drinking shenanigans) with regards to THEIR father. As for Bristol Palin, face it: the pregnancy of an unmarried, teenaged daughter of a major party vice presidential candidate is a legitimate news story.
Absolutely right, rotter. Those kids made the stupid choice to have parents who are public figures, so they have no right to their own individual privacy. By choosing to allow their parents to seek and hold public office, they have forfeited the rights that other Americans hold — and must be held accountable for that choice.
Asshat.
Duros, fine. Call bullshit on me. Now prove it.
Another asshat.
Quaker: New York Times, February 21, 2008:
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
Later, after minimal investigating, it turned out that the two “advisors” were disgruntled former employees and the “intervention” meeting they spoke of most likely never took place.
Asshats: 3 up, 3 down.
J.
So I’m still waiting, Mr. Tea. Where’s the part where the Times reported that an affair took place?
it turned out that the two “advisors” were disgruntled former employees and the “intervention” meeting they spoke of most likely never took place.
Right. Can’t trust anyone disgruntled. To be really credible, the press needs to go look for a loyalist to rat out the boss. Otherwise, it’s just “bias,” right?
And why so cautious on the intervention? “Most likely never took place”? Do you have evidence or not?
Because, Quaker, I avoid absolutes when I don’t have absolute proof. The ex-employees said it happened. Every other single person they said was there said it never happened. And several others who would have known about it said it never happened. I am utterly convinced that it never happened, but it is technically possible that the jerks who fed the Times the story (that they checked out as thoroughly as Dan Rather did the Texas Air National Guard documents) are telling the truth. Extremely improbable, but not impossible.
But back to the substance of the story: what the hell is it about this woman’s legal troubles A) merit national news coverage and B) reflect in the least on Sarah Palin?
Answer: it makes a Republican look bad. So therefore it is essential that it be aired all over the country.
Pity the media couldn’t exercise a hint of the discretion they showed John Edwards and his banging a woman working for his campaign…
J.
Pity the media couldn’t exercise a hint of the discretion they showed John Edwards and his banging a woman working for his campaign…
Let’s recall how it became known that young Ms. Palin was blessed: her Mom announced it. Had Mr. Edwards done the same with his affair, I suspect the big news orgs might have been a tad quicker on the draw.
On one hand, we start with a rumor about a candidate. On the other we have a statement from the candidate herself–followed with parading the happy couple before reporters. And to handle these things differently is evidence of “anti-conservative bias”?
Haw! Mr. Tea, you’re a panic!
Quaker, try to pay attention. I’m not talking about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. I’m talking about the stupid rumors that she is Trig Palin’s birth mother, and the BIG NEWS!!!!! that Bristol Palin’s fiance’s mother has been arrested (not even convicted) on drug charges.
Which of those was triggered by a statement from a candidate herself?
J.
I’m talking about the stupid rumors that she is Trig Palin’s birth mother,
You are? I declare.
You threw me right off the track with this:
Pity the media couldn’t exercise a hint of the discretion they showed John Edwards and his banging a woman working for his campaign…
and this:
Later, after minimal investigating, it turned out that the two “advisors” were disgruntled former employees and the “intervention” meeting they spoke of most likely never took place.
(By the way, even the McCain supporter who issued the denial admits an intervention took place–he only disagrees as to what prompted it. Facts, shmacts.)
and this:
It’s truly educational to compare how much ink was spent on the Edwards story before the Enquirer came out with pictures, versus the ink spent on other so-called “scandals.” The New York Times put out a front page article on an “affair” McCain never had with a lobbyist on the thinnest possible evidence.
For someone ordering other people to “Pay attention!” you sure do go off on tangents a lot.
Oh and this too:
That’s why, for example, Patrick Kennedy’s assault of the airport security officer or drug-fueled car wreck weren’t career enders. That’s why the media covered up John Edwards’ affair with a woman he paid off through his campaign.
Made me totally think you were talking about something other than Trig Palin. My mistake.
OK, Quaker, we’ve sham-polited our way around things. How about the substance — what the hell IS the element about this woman’s arrest that makes it national news?
I am reminded of a British judge’s comment upon suppressing the publication of nude photos of Prince Charles: “The public interest is not necessarily synonymous with ‘interesting to the public.’”
J.
Jay Tea: Because, Quaker, I avoid absolutes when I don’t have absolute proof.
Translated JT: I like innuendo.
“…so they have no right to their individual privacy.”
“Privacy?” Jenna Bush did her underage drinking in a PUBLIC BAR.
Could you propose a metric by which we could measure the New York Times for liberal or conservative bias?
Bias? No, bias is in the eye of the beholder. But I can give you a few hundred instances of the NY Times carrying water for the right or furthering the con agenda.
Here you go, take your time there’s a lot.
Well, no one has proven to my satisfaction that AO is not a puppykilling Nazi pederast, so I’m going to go on believing it.
Oh, and by the way, LOL.
How about the substance — what the hell IS the element about this woman’s arrest that makes it national news?
What element? The millionaire press corps obsession with “character issues.”
Stupid? You bet. There’s absolutely nothing about the arrest of Ms. Johnston that warrants putting the story anywhere other than on the “Police Blotter” section of whatever passes for a newspaper in Wasilla, AK.
What’s interesting to me is that you only now rouse yourself to complain. We went through eight years of Ken Starr’s bogus investigation, cable news programs hosting the Gennifer Flowers, actual speculation that the Clintons were murderers, a series of entirely fabricated “lies” attributed to Al Gore, credulous coverage of the Swift Boat Vets inventing stories about John Kerry, and speculation as to whether Barack Obama was born in the U.S., is in fact a Muslim, has a friendship with William Ayers, agrees or disagrees with Jeremiah Wright, and may actually be the anti-Christ.
These are crackpot tales that in better times would have run only in the mimeographed pamphlets of lunatic fringe militias. Instead, all these tales were hashed over endlessly in the pages of our most respected papers and on the stages of cable news shows.
Ms. Johnston? Nobody who isn’t her relative gives it more than a moment’s thought. And anyone who thinks this is the story that defines the soul of the press corps hasn’t been paying attention.
Palin in 2012. Please, god, Palin in 2012. Not only because she’ll be destroyed, but also because of all the great laughs it will provide for the reality-based community known as The Majority of America.
So Oliver,
In your world bias is in the eye of the beholder. Are you suggesting that a metric doesn’t exist to measure that? Your dayjob is working for an outfit with an agenda, no attempt at anything but propaganda. You had no trouble bringing up a series of NYTimes articles that are not out and out carrying water for the left. Perhaps you would like to harness the database you have at work and list stories from the NYTimes that slant to the left. Are you intellectually honest enough to do that. Perhaps we could list them side by side and see which column is longer.
Quaker,
You are so full of shit, you stand by your statement that the NYTimes wasn’t insinuating an affair between McCain and that cute little lobbyist. Even Michael Kinsley called bullshit on that.
LOL Ken Starr’s “bogus” investigation was enough to get Clinton disbarred. For most lawyers that is about as shameful as it gets. For the record could you tell us which part of the Swift Boat crew’s story was false? It’s worth a cool million if you can come up with it.
It’s all he said she said but who has more credibility, Bill Clinton or Juanita Broderick.?
Bruce,
Do your parents know you use thier computer?
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds.
Are you suggesting that a metric doesn’t exist to measure that?
Bias? No. Bias is a judgement call. I can personally say I think an organization is biased – ie, Fox News – but at best when it comes to concrete numbers I can say they are a major source of pro-conservative misinformation.
Your dayjob is working for an outfit with an agenda, no attempt at anything but propaganda.
Media Matters has never claimed to be a neutral arbiter. They are a progressive organization, and has been since day one. You see factual errors and call it propaganda. I see factual errors that are often designed to aid the right.
You had no trouble bringing up a series of NYTimes articles that are not out and out carrying water for the left.
No, I had no trouble linking to a series of NY Times stories that furthered the con agenda via misinformation. You are free to do so with misinformation from the left. The problem is the major media watchdog on the right is not concerned with misinformation, they are concerned with “bias” and turn out things like “Union Got To Be Kidding Me” which complains that the Times editorial board is pro-union, not that they said anything wrong, just anger that they’re pro-union. By contrast, a recent MM story on the Times is “For second day in a row, NY Times falsely suggested Bill Clinton refuses to disclose source of speaking fees“, that is the NY Times got something wrong that aids right-wing memes. You know, actual factual stuff that happened.
So when the right gets serious about its media criticism, get back to me.
Man, and it’s supposed to be the RIGHT that’s obsessed over all things Clinton, Quaker. Your side is the one that is supposed to be all about how it’s time to MoveOn.
But to answer you: Ken Starr’s investigation led to more people doing more time in prison than Patrick Fitzgerald’s digging into the Valerie Plame story, which ended with the actual leaker (Armitage) not being charged with a single crime. Flowers had actual tapes that convincingly documented an intimate relationship with Clinton. The “Clintons as murderers” was almost entirely relegated to the nuts on the fringe, much like the “Obama is a crypto-Muslim,” “John McCain is a Manchurian Candidate,” and “Sarah Palin is an Alaskan Separatist who didn’t really give birth to Trig” whackjobs. And John Kerry not only refused to directly challenge the Swift Boat Veterans’ statements, but had to back down from at least one key element of his Viet Nam narrative — the “Christmas in Cambodia” fraud he’d been telling for decades.
I wish I lived in your world, Quaker. It would be so much easier. Instead of having to remember history, I’d just make up stuff that was easier to remember AND consistent with my worldview.
J.
The “Clintons as murderers” was almost entirely relegated to the nuts on the fringe
You mean like leading conservative voice and Bush White House guest (and interviewer of Bush/Cheney) Rush Limbaugh? Heh.
AO:
You have a few belts while you’re trolling here, don’tcha?
Are you sure you want to replace “LOL” with your new mantra, “Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds?” More chances for typos, you know.
Tell ya what, Oliver: I’ll start apologizing for Limbaugh (whom I spent years detesting, and still don’t listen to) when you start apologizing for… um… ah…
Dang, throw me a bone here. Can you cite a single commentator on the left who has actually become a commercial success in the free market? The Air America people couldn’t cut it, Olbermann is the tallest midget at MSNBC…
Dang it, it seems that whenever the American people are given a chance to give their ears to some liberal/progressive voices, they choose not to. How rude of them.
Oh, and you might also note that I qualified what I said with “almost entirely.” I knew you, with the vast resources of your employer behind you, would have a counterexample or two at your fingertips.
One last odd little point: did you ever hear that Purdue Pharma, the maker of Oxycontin, was fined most of a billion dollars for faking test results on the drug? It turned out to be a hell of a lot more addictive than they let on, and a LOT of doctors who trusted Purdue Pharma’s honesty ended up getting a LOT of their patients inadvertently addicted.
This all came out long after Limbaugh’s legal and medical issues.
J.
Yeah, nobody listens to NPR.
Bruce, we all know you’re an idiot. No need to constantly reaffirm it. I specified “free market.” Since when did NPR stop taking money out of my pocket without my consent?
J.
Ken Starr’s investigation led to more people doing more time in prison than Patrick Fitzgerald’s digging into the Valerie Plame story, which ended with the actual leaker (Armitage) not being charged with a single crime.
True.
Why is that, I wonder?
Not to inject too much reality, Duros, but the first thing that comes to mind is that actual laws were broken in Whitewater, while in the Plame case the only time actual laws were allegedly broken was not during the initial disclosure, but during the investigation after the fact.
J.
Funny, I thought disclosing the names of CIA agents was a crime. Pre-9/11 thinking, I’m sure.
Jay Tea: I have been entirely consistent on that principle: the children of politicians are off-limits until they inject themselves into the national debate.
By this you mean that when a person gets arrested for trafficking in Schedule II drugs it is improper for the press to report on it? You know, illegal possision of Oxycontin is a felony, unless of course you happen to be a millionaire, in which case it’s perfectly OK, but unfortunately for her, Bristol’s mom-in-law is not a millionaire. “So and so was arrested by the Wassila police on such and such a date and charged with trafficking in narcotics. Newspapers should not have reported this, because an article of news like that brings disrepute upon the political party which I prefer.”
But back to the substance of the story: what the hell is it about this woman’s legal troubles A) merit national news coverage and B) reflect in the least on Sarah Palin?
Answer: it makes a Republican look bad. So therefore it is essential that it be aired all over the country.
My, aren’t we paranoid! Look, a cloud has drifted across the sun; whoa, weather-controlling liberals are scheming to ruin my day at the beach.
The other day I looked at the news and one of the headlines was that some teevee actor got a haircut. No kidding, dumb actor gets haircut = news of national import. Now why was this haircut front-page news? Did it too somehow fit in to the mass media’s vast conspiracy against “conservatives”? No, because it’s because casual readers look at that kind of fluff and they are amused.
Similarly the actual (i.e. non-paranoid) reason the national media decided that this bit off the Wassila police blotter was more important than serious news is simply because hicks are funny. Readers laugh and smirk and are therefore more receptive to the advertising that accompanies the article. C.R.E.A.M., yo. Blame it on capitalism.
Duros, you’re generally right, but you might actually try reading the law some time. Plame was NOT covered by the protective law, and Armitage was not charged. The guy was an idiot and a blabbermouth, but he didn’t break any laws.
Anyway, Plame’s cover was blown twice long before Armitage said anything — first by a Russian spy in the 1990s, then to Cuba by a bureaucratic screwup at the CIA. Her career as an undercover operative was long done before she wrangled his little African junket and he came back with two stories — one for the CIA, another for the New York Times.
J.
Can you cite a single commentator on the left who has actually become a commercial success in the free market?
These blogs we got here on the left have been effective enough the right is now obsessed with duplicating our success, just like the left has been obsessed with duplicating Limbaugh. And while K.O. does not yet have the reach of Limbaugh, he sure drives you guys insane.
That Purdue Pharma did something wrong doesn’t change the fact that cultural scold Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a common junkie looking for a fix.
“So when the right gets serious about its media criticism, get back to me.”
After the performance during our last election I find it hard to believe you can say that with a straight face.
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds.
Jay, you might “detest” Rush Limbaugh, but you do realize that among conservatives, that makes you a verrrrrrry small minority, right? If Rush Limbaugh is a “nut on the fringe,” (the man interviewed the sitting Vice President, for pete’s sake), then I’m the Archbishop of Canterbury
Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a common junkie looking for a fix.
Limbaugh, I believe, has been clean for quite some time. I trust you hold the same opinions about people like Patrick Kennedy and Barack Obama, two other former drug users?
J.
No because neither of those people is an odious racist sexist warmonger who consistently places themselves above the common man. Limbaugh, on the other hand, is.
Yeah, I’m sure Rush is “clean”. Heh.
OK, that makes it perfectly clear. Limbaugh’s greatest offense isn’t his drug habit; it’s just the one you like most to throw around. And Patrick Kennedy’s bust for driving around stoned out of his gourd, potentially emulating dear old dad, gets him a pass because he’s too stupid to be a “odious racist sexist warmonger.”
As a Kennedy, though, he’s got the “places (himself) above the common man” sewn up.
You might want to reconsider. He also once assaulted an older black female airport security agent because she wasn’t properly deferential to Himself. So he’s got a bid on “odious,” “racist,” and “sexist” elements too.
J.
Patrick Kennedy is a drunk just like his old man. While the younger Kennedy doesn’t have a real good record behind the wheel of an automobile at least he has never killed anyone like his daddy did.
So how does Limbaugh racism compare to the racist church Obama was a member of for so long? I mean if we really think racism is such a bad thing why do we not denounce it wherever we find it?
It is quite telling of progressive values that Ted Kennedy is held up as a hero to the left. Can anyone here tel me why he shouldn’t have done hard time for his role in killing that poor girl?
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds. LOL See Ted Kennedy
Can you cite a single commentator on the left who has actually become a commercial success in the free market?
Maybe there’s no need for one when the entire media and entertainment industry is “liberal”.
Or not.
Yo, Jay Tea, I kinda meant NPR is a part of the “free market” in that one is free to listen to it or choose another station. And that 90% of it’s funding is from listener contributions, with almost all the rest from corporate and philanthropic donors. What’s more free than voluntarily writing a check?
But thanks for calling me an “idiot.” That’s real Wizbang-style arguifyin’ there, son.
How you doin’ at your new digs? Because they really need you back at Wizbang. As ridiculous as this may sound, you were the best they had!
“…when the entire media…is ‘ “liberal.”
Outlets like Fox “News” Channel, Investors Business Daily, Washington Times, and the New York Post, and about a gazillion right-wing talk show hosts are “liberal?!” Damn, I don’t know what you’re smoking, but I doubt it’s legal.
“…he never killed anyone like his daddy did.”
I knew Laura Bush and Ted Kennedy had something in common!
“Can anyone here tel me why he shouldn’t have done hard time for his role in killing that poor girl.”
We’ll only answer that question after you answer why Laura Bush “shouldn’t have done hard time” for her role in killing that poor guy, Michael Douglas (no, not the actor, they just have the same name).
Then, Bruce, you’ll join me in ending the public subsidizing of NPR? If the amount is so insignificant, then they won’t have any problems at all if it’s removed, right?
I actually do listen to NPR. Car Talk, Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me, On The Media, Weekend Edition Sunday, sometimes All Things Considered… but I don’t think that we, as a society, ought to be compelled to subsidize it. Rather, let it stand or fall on its own merits, alongside all the rest of the radio stations.
Of course, this STILL doesn’t address what the newsworthy element of Ms. Johnston’s arrest that makes it national news, as opposed to anyone else’s drug arrest…
J.
Rotter,
Surely you jest? But I’ll bite.
Laura Bush was a young girl who ran a stop sign and killed a classmate of hers. The incident was witnessed by the dead classmates father.
A drunken Ted Kennedy leaves a party with a little chica from the election staff headed for the submarine races. He is unable to keep from driving his car into a pond. He swims free and flees the scene. He doesn’t bother to stop for help, leaving the girl trapped underwater to die but does have the presence of mind to swim off the island in an attempt to set up an alibi.
The situations are almost identical. In one, two inexperienced teenagers run a stop sign. In the other a drunken lecher leaves a girl to die underwater and flees the scene of the crime.
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds.
Of course, this STILL doesn’t address what the newsworthy element of Ms. Johnston’s arrest that makes it national news, as opposed to anyone else’s drug arrest…
Just keep telling yourself that. Maybe it’ll come true.
AO, you had to change that sign-off, didn’t you?
Shoot a liberal is what you originally meant, right?
I’d just make up stuff that was easier to remember AND consistent with my worldview.
What happened to “Pay attention! I’m talking about Trig Palin here”? Anyway, in the statement above, you have offered your truest statement to date. This is precisely what you do, Mr. Tea, at almost every turn.
Quaker,
You are so full of shit,
Game over. You lose. I have neither the time nor inclination to provide you a free education. Piss off.
“…two inexperienced teenagers run a stop sign.”
No, just one teenager was driving (Laura Bush). I also have no idea why the word “inexperienced” is in that sentence, as if that somehow ameliorates the situation. I’m sure the family of Mr. Douglas took great comfort in the fact that Mrs. Bush was “inexperienced.” Another thing: unlike Kennedy, our soon-to-be-ex-first-lady was stone cold sober when she committed HER manslaughter.
LOL Rotter,
Why am I not surprised you are seemingly outraged by a car accident caused by a young girl and unfazed by Kennedy’s cowardice? You have no sense of shame or honor, your name is well chosen.
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds.
daniel rotter,
The point: Why do conservatives always whine about a “liberal media”, then brag about no successful lefty commentators? One is a conspiracy against the free market while the other is a success of the free market. Why do they try to have it both ways?
Scratch a chickenhawk and a conservative bleeds.
Nobody holds Patrick Kennedy up as a God. The right holds Limbaugh up as a deity and he’s one of the leading thinkers on the right – which says a lot about the right, frankly.
freD, here’s the distinction: the commentators you allude to are open and up-front about being biased and offering opinions, while the media makes pretensions about being unbiased and fair and committed to the truth. We have no problem with bias and opinion — as long as it is labeled as such. In some ways, Time and Newsweek and CNN and the big three network news divisions are counterpoints to the Limbaughs and Hannitys and whatnot — but they insist that they are not.
Limbaugh as a god? Surely not. But even those of us who don’t like him have to admire his genius — look what he did when the Democrats in the Senate sent him that scolding letter. In one fell swoop, he raised a shitload of money for a worthy charity, snared himself a ton of good publicity, and made every single Senate Democrat look like a cheap idiot. That was brilliant.
(For the uninitiated, the Democrats found a time Limbaugh spoke a smidgen carelessly and could have been interpreted as insulting the troops. They all signed a letter of condemnation and sent it not to Limbaugh, but to his boss. The guy gave Limbaugh the letter, who auctioned it off (along with some other goodies — cigars, a briefcase made by Haliburton, and so on) with the entire proceeds going to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. Then, to boot, he personally matched the winning bid with a donation of his own and challenged each and every Senator who signed the letter to do the same. Not a one of them did.
Oh, and Limbaugh’s original statement was captured and disseminated far and wide by Media Matters, who managed to omit the full context that indicated that Limbaugh was speaking about the “phony soldiers” like Jesse MacBeth, who falsely claimed to have served in Iraq. So Media Matters gets a smidgen of the credit for helping Limbaugh raise over $4.2 million for the MCLEF. So congrats there, Oliver.
As I said, I don’t like the guy. But that whole incident was a stroke of genius — and he couldn’t have done it without the help of Media Matters and 41 Democratic Senators who eagerly danced when MM pulled their strings.
J.
“far and wide by Media Matters, who managed to omit the full context that indicated that Limbaugh was speaking about the “phony soldiers” like Jesse MacBeth, who falsely claimed to have served in Iraq. So Media Matters gets a smidgen of the credit for helping Limbaugh raise over $4.2 million for the MCLEF. So congrats there, Oliver.”
Now that’s pretty funny, we don’t ever see anything taken out of context here on Oliver’s personal site, do we? Intellectual honesty isn’t really a strong point of the left.
When is Oliver going to change his avatar to a pic of Tony Rezko?
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds.
Amused observer loves him some lollies. All day suckers for practice. No chrome trailer hitch will ever be safe again.
I see we have a homo hater in the house. Barney Frank would be deeply ashamed of you barflycorpse.
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds.
Anyway, Plame’s cover was blown twice long before Armitage said anything — first by a Russian spy in the 1990s, then to Cuba by a bureaucratic screwup at the CIA. Her career as an undercover operative was long done before she wrangled his little African junket and he came back with two stories — one for the CIA, another for the New York Times.
Which part of this did Mr. Libby use to justify lying to a grand jury, Mr. Tea?
Here’s a hint: It starts with “n” and ends with “one.”
AO: I am outraged by both incidents. How come your so unfazed by Laura Bush’s recklessness? Does Michael Douglas’s life mean less to you than Mary Jo Kopechne’s?
“We have no problems with bias and opinion-as long as it is labeled as such.”
Funny, then how come you rightists aren’t clamoring for Fox “News” Channel to advertise itself as the “Advocates for Conservatives and Republicans Network” as opposed to the “Fair and Balanced Network?” Anyone who’s watched, I don’t know, five minutes of the F(R)NC would know that the former slogan would be a classic example of truth-in-advertising. That’s right, rightists like yourself don’t care about unadvertised bias as long as it’s CONSERVATIVE unadvertised bias.
Mr. Libby, it appears, Mr. Basement, ran afoul of the lesson of Watergate: “it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.”
A lesson that Mr. Obama could stand to remember as he constantly revises and reworks and rewrites the history of contacts between his camp and that of Mr. Blagojevich, a tale that is, indeed, an evolving paradigm…
J.
who managed to omit the full context
Oh, this excuse again? Every time MM has caught Limbaugh (and Hannity, and O’Reilly, etc., etc., etc.) with his foot in his mouth he likes to make the case that the entire 4 hour shebang must be posted for the “full context”. Limbaugh was not talking about Macbeth, he clearly noted that he considered troops who were against the war as “phony”. And while the money Limbaugh raised was a good thing, it hardly makes up for the lives lost thanks to the media environment he helped create in the first place. But then, that’s supposing a guy like Limbaugh has any shame.
You’ve got a pretty detailed view of El Rushbo for a conservative who supposedly doesn’t like him. Just admit it, you’re a dittohead. The vast majority of you on the right are.
No, Oliver, it was Media Matters’ involvement that prompted my interest. Limbaugh mentioned MacBeth, the CALLER then mentioned active-duty anti-war troops, and Limbaugh continued talking about MacBeth and his ilk. From the transcript, it is fairly clear that Limbaugh didn’t catch the caller trying to change the subject — thus feeding the “gotcha” game Media Matters thrives on. Try reviewing a transcript that hasn’t been Bowdlerized by your colleagues.
I hope you’re not a salaried employee, Oliver. You deserve to get paid overtime for this argument.
J.
Reading that transcript, there is no way you can clearly say he was talking about Macbeth. The caller speaks about thirty words and you’re arguing that Limbaugh continued his previous thought? A serious stretch.
I generally prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it’s definitely not ‘clear’ that he meant Macbeth.
Parthenon, the MacBeth interpretation is consistent with the rest of what he said in the transcript. What Media Matters did was very similar to those who jumped on John Kerry’s “botched joke.”
The difference, of course, is that Media Matters LIVES for these “gotcha” moments.
And all this is fine and dandy, but it detracts from the initial point of this article: why the hell is this woman’s arrest worthy of national attention?
J.
So, by the way, is the anti-war soldiers en masse interpretation. But your question at the end is a good one.
Then, Parthenon, if there are two plausible interpretations, then the fair thing to do is to ask which is more consistent with the speaker’s prior statements. And in this case, Limbaugh had not only been highly critical of “phony soldiers” in the MacBeth example, but highly laudatory of actual US troops on countless occasions. So, unless you’re a hyperpartisan foundation filled with shameless hacks eager to push an agenda, Limbaugh should be given the benefit of the doubt.
No matter, though; as noted, he turned the whole incident into a huge gain for a very worthy charity, so all’s well that ends well.
I wonder if Media Matters ever donated to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, or did anything at all for them…
J.
Rotter,
Any accident resulting in death is by definition a tragic thing. For family and friends, the community at large, a life extinquished is a loss that can’t be made whole again.
You brought up the unfortunate death of Michael Douglas as a partisan gotcha to deflect critism from a drunken lout, the son of a drunken lout. Patrick Kennedy has learned nothing from his father’s mishaps other than Kennedys aren’t held accountable for thier actions.
Laura Bush was a careless driver and a man died because of it. Kennedy’s crimes are an order of magnitude greater. It is no dimishment of the value of Douglas or the culpability of Laura Bush to point out that Kennedy’s behavior was beyond the pale.
He left that girl to die. He didn’t go to the houses nearby and try to summon help, instead he swam off the island trying to set up an alibi. Let us examine that again, as that girl was struggling for breath trapped in a sunken car that a drunken Ted Kennedy put into a pond he was trying to escape the embarrassement of it all by running away. He swam off the island. He didn’t go back to the party, he didn’t go up to any of the houses nearby and use the phone. No he swam off the island desperately trying to set up an alibi.
So I ask you directly Rotter, why shouldn’t the POS that abandoned Mary Jo to die, have done time?
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds.
AMused 0: Patrick Kennedy has learned nothing from his father’s mishaps other than Kennedys aren’t held accountable for their actions.
And I’m sure Bush Jr has learned that very same lesson from his father. Pardons for everyone! (Not that they did anything wrong, of course.)
(A lesson, no doubt, about to be reinforced by a Dem Congress who will fail to investigate or prosecute Jr’s crimes.)
So, unless you’re a hyperpartisan foundation filled with shameless hacks eager to push an agenda, Limbaugh should be given the benefit of the doubt.
But the thing is Rush is also on record – If I’m not mistaken – joining the ‘anti-war is unpatriotic’ chorus. That’s what would make it harder for me to believe him. I suppose if you’re going to talk for fifteen hours a week, you’re going to support conflicting cases now and then.
And, OT, I’m surprised you don’t have a higher opinion of mediamatters. They’d be a better organization if they checked liberal falsehoods as well, IMO – sort of a factcheck.org for the media – but you’d have to be pretty hyperpartisan yourself to not see as useful any checking of the media’s bs. I don’t want people spreading liberal lies, in other words.
And, OT, I’m surprised you don’t have a higher opinion of mediamatters.
In theory, I do. But I’ve seen their work, up close and personal, to have anything besides a very suspicious — even dismissive — of their work.
J.
AMused 0: Patrick Kennedy has learned nothing from his father’s mishaps other than Kennedys aren’t held accountable for their actions.
That must be why he checked himself into rehab right after that.
Unlike Fox (usually) or MSNBC (lately), most MSM isn’t consistently unbiased and unfair one way or the other. They simply worship the highest bidder. That’s why Sumner Redstone(D) turns Bushie and Rupert Murdoch(R) turns Obaman. In reality, they are ideologically neither D nor R but I, as in In$ider. Next Big Thing In$ider. And the interoffice directives flow downstream to the reporters who’d rather keep their jobs.
Protective agencies like the FDA label damn near everything. So what’s a few more “protective” labels? Maybe returning to the Fairness Doctrine would make everybody happy?
freD, are you saying you’d TRUST the government to apply those labels and do your judging for you? Food and drugs, yeah — it’s impossible for the average person to verify those for themselves, but deciding what is fact and what is opinion?
Sheesh…
J.
Jay Tea, I’m worried about you, dude. You’ve been posting here almost non-stop since early on the 26th. Do you ever sleep?
I’m touched by your concern, Bruce, but this is like mental warm-up exercises for me. It gets my brain working so I can do the real thinking for my own articles.
J.
Jay Tea: It gets my brain working so I can do the real thinking for my own articles.
Thanks, for the laugh. I needed that.
I was just concerned that AO would come to “believe” that you were on illegal drugs, and drop a dime on your ass.
A lesson that Mr. Obama could stand to remember as he constantly revises and reworks and rewrites the history of contacts between his camp and that of Mr. Blagojevich,
Rewriting? Revising?
Once again, Tea, you’re MSU. The first and last account remain the same: no discussion between Mr. Obama and the Gov regarding his replacement, no deals offered or made by Mr. Obama’s staff.
Of course, feel free to once again insist you were really talking about something else.
But back to the topic at hand… if Sarah Palin’s daughter’s fiance’s mother is prominent enough to merit discussion, can we also discuss Barack Obama’s illegal alien aunt in Boston and his poverty-stricken half-brother in Africa?
J.
What an excellent way to come back to “the topic at hand.”
You’re too tired to even try to hide your dishonesty at this point. Go to bed, man.
freD, are you saying you’d TRUST the government to apply those labels and do your judging for you? Food and drugs, yeah — it’s impossible for the average person to verify those for themselves, but deciding what is fact and what is opinion?
No. I trust government as much as I trust any power center – unchecked, trouble usually happens. The Fairness Doctrine comment was pointed at you, as you seemed to want media to be labeled. I say media bias is subject to the whims of the marketplace, but with a strong influence from corporate board members in power who will follow their own money, sometimes to the detriment of the common shareholder. Any other conspiracy theory I’ve heard (postmodernist influence, soft power…) doesn’t make sense to me.
———-
if Sarah Palin’s daughter’s fiance’s mother is prominent enough to merit discussion, can we also discuss Barack Obama’s illegal alien aunt in Boston and his poverty-stricken half-brother in Africa?
It will inevitably happen. In America if there’s a market for trash it will be sold. Is Obama still an illegal alien megalomaniac muslim socialist jew-hater in the land of wingnuttia? I haven’t checked lately.
can we also discuss Barack Obama’s illegal alien aunt in Boston and his poverty-stricken half-brother in Africa?
Haven’t you already?
Of course you have. That’s why your outrage over this stupid story rings hollw, Mr. Tea.
AO, BOTH Laura Bush and Ted Kennedy should have done time. Will you agree with me on that?
You do realize, Jay, that the caller HIMSELF took Rush’s “phony soldiers” comment as indicating those soldiers in Iraq who opposed the war (“If you talk to real soldiers, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq.”). Interestingly, also, Rush didn’t say anything to the caller like “Uh, sir, I think you misunderstood what I meant by the term ‘”phony soldiers’”. So even if he was INITIALLY only talking about the MacBeth’s of America with the now-infamous two words, he sure didn’t have a problem with the caller “broadening” what he meant to include anti-war-in-Iraq soldiers; otherwise, as I said, why didn’t he chastise or correct the caller’s interpretation of what he meant with those two words?
freD, there’s a difference between wanting the media labeled, and wanting them labeled by the government. I would prefer public pressure to hold them accountable, with no consequences beyond public backlash if they refuse. I don’t want the government anywhere NEAR making those kinds of judgments and imposing any kinds of standards. That thought worries me no end.
And you’re right about there being a market for trash, freD. Witness Oliver’s salivating glee over posting this initial story.
J.
But isn’t Oliver being accurate regarding both Johnstons arrest and Limbaugh’s abuse?
Obama has yet to be proven an illegal alien megalomaniac muslim socialist jew-hater.
Seems when “lefties” or “liberals” get too ‘out there’ or hypocritical nutty their audience disappears. Where the hell’s Rosie O’Donnell, Ward Churchill or Cindy Sheehan these days? OTOH, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly are all still doing quite well – as are all the comics and critics who make a good living off the formers continuous ‘out there’ hypocritical nuttiness. What’s up with that?
freD, work on your reading comprehension. I said Obama’s AUNT is an illegal alien, and that is beyond dispute. And his half-brother IS living in squalor back in Africa.
Rosie O’Donnell, Ward Churchill, and Cindy Sheehan were first hailed as heroes by the left and nuts by the right. Now pretty much everyone agrees that the right was right all along — they just won’t admit it.
On the other hand, enough people still like and agree with Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly (I’m not among them) that they are still going strong. They also never had their nutso moments that the three you cited (O’Donnell and “fire can’t melt steel;” Churchill and his plagiarism and fraud; and Sheehan going after Pelosi’s seat) all did.
One you didn’t mention was Michael Savage and his “why don’t you get AIDS” meltdown that cost him his TV gig.
Perhaps the right ought to apologize for not picking more obvious nutjobs for its ideological heroes. Definitely not fair of them.
J.
dunno about that, Jay. Glen Beck still has a day job.
I’ll take your word for it, Duros. I really don’t follow right-wing commentators much at all. Dennis Miller, when I remember and am not working, and that’s about it.
J.
Try reviewing a transcript that hasn’t been Bowdlerized by your colleagues.
Or you could actually listen to the audio at the link I gave. I know its tough and all, but sheesh.
Jay Tea: Now pretty much everyone agrees that the right was right all along — they just won’t admit it.
IOW, everyone agrees with you, and those that say they don’t are clearly liars. Beautiful!
You KNOW you’d object if someone on the left made that statement about the right.
freD, work on your reading comprehension.
You’re projecting. I was referring to wingnuttia, not you. Here’s the quote in question (from Dec 28th, 2008 at 6:33 pm):
Is Obama still an illegal alien megalomaniac muslim socialist jew-hater in the land of wingnuttia?
Hastily typed, I’ll admit. “illegal alien” refers to the wingnut attack on Obamas US citizenship, trying to make his POTUS-elect status illegal.
—–
Rosie O’Donnell, Ward Churchill, and Cindy Sheehan were first hailed as heroes by the left
Which “left”? The MSM left? Proof? I always saw them as nuts.
—–
Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly
The market for these clowns is strong because the conservative base is wingnutty. True conservatives, (who understand that most citizens do not need or want government on their backs during the good times, and who want to keep government clean and efficient to accomplish only that necessary business which citizens cannot accomplish on their own during bad times), have been overrun by “hillbilly heroin kooks”, as Goldwater might say.
“They also never had their nutso moments.”
You’re kidding, right?
Hannity said that making sure that Nancy Pelosi does not beoome Speaker of the House was “something worth dying for.”
Limbaugh read on the air, in a credible context, the claim of some wignutty financial “newsletter” that Vincent Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hilary Clinton. Then his body was moved to Fort Marcy Park.
And who could forget O’Lielly’s invitation, on his radio show, to Al-Qaeda to bomb San Francisco?
I also don’t know why someone contemplating running for Congress (the Cindy Sheehan reference) would qualify as a “nutso moment.”
As an added bonus, Coulter proclaimed Palin the “Conservative of the Year.”
Did she win the award because of her charismatic populist appeal?
Because she’s the finest conservatism has to offer?
Because D.C. needs her kind of “political reformer”?
Nooooo. Sarah Palin is conservative of the year “for her genius at annoying all the right people.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29995
It’s the new standard for conservative national leadership! Screw qualifications – VPOTUS and potential POTUS is be all about annoying Americans. As if Bush hasn’t done enough already.
Is conservatism in the toilet or what?
daniel rotter: also don’t know why someone contemplating running for Congress (the Cindy Sheehan reference) would qualify as a “nutso moment.”
Certainly she had at least as much chance of succeeding as the 99th most senior Senator of becoming President.
How did that “nutso”‘s plan work out?
“On the other hand, enough people still like and agree with Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly (I’m not among them) that they are still going strong. They also never had their nutso moments that the three you cited “
Sexual deviant O’Reilly
Big Pharma Limbaugh
Hannity & his Negruh Hatin’ Pal Hal