Buyer's Remorse?

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover

Er.... most of the real knife work has come from senior Republican figures. The "Liberal Democrats" have largely been able to sit back and let GOP do the dirty work for them.

All w**k fantasies aside about Palin do you _really_ see her making it through an open primary?

most of the real knife work has come from senior Republican figures.

How do we know that? The people trashing Palin seem to be doing it anonymously, which means we're back to taking the media's word for it. I'm inclined to call bullshit.

All w**k fantasies aside about Palin

How about going and having some wank fantasies about yourself, instead of wanking on my blog?

"How do we know that? The people trashing Palin seem to be doing it anonymously, which means we're back to taking the media's word for it. I'm inclined to call bullshit."

Nah, it's definitely Republicans spreading the rumors about Palin. As she has already discovered in Alaska, there is nothing more vicious than intra-party squabbling.

Nah, it's definitely Republicans spreading the rumors about Palin.

It wasn't Republicans demanding that she show her hospital records to prove that she hadn't faked her pregnancy.

Regardless of who is spreading the rumors, they wouldn't spread far without accomplices in the media. I would think that journalistic integrity would demand that they not be "spread" (like other varieties of manure) simply on background. That's not news--it's gossip, and has about the same journalistic value.

Especially in light of the fact that they give so many passes to Obama about far more questionable things. I can see an editor tapping their chin while surmising, 'Hmmm, the prez candidate having associations with Palestine, or the VP candidate's wardrobe....' It makes me mad just starting to think about it.

Yes, I agree, I don't see liberals waking up from these fallacies any time soon, if at all.

Yes, the pervasive nationwide media frenzy over each and every obscure and unfounded Sarah Palin rumor reminds me of how completely absorbed and frenzied the media was over the John Edwards affair rumors.

Oh, wait. That wasn't a rumor. My bad.

She has five kids, hunts, goes to a fundy church, and she didn't abort her down syndrome child. That is the complete explanation for the media's hatred. That, and people like her.

Nah, it's definitely Republicans spreading the rumors about Palin.

I'm going to agree with Rand, and call bullshit on this. As he observed, we have only journalists' word for it -- and they're lying sacks of shit who have to rotate to screw their pants on each morning. Generally speaking, if a reporter said the Sun came up in the East this morning, I'd need a photograph as evidence.

Furthermore, senior Republican aides does not equate to senior Republicans. Perhaps we have a situation like the senior "Republicans" in the State Department and CIA (meaning they were working in a Republican Administration) who did so much to sabotage Bush Administration policy. That is, we could well be dealing with moles.

And who, I wonder, would have non-Obama moles, would be talented in the politics of personal destruction, and need to discredit a national-level female politician as fast as possible? Hmmm.

All other issues aside, the criticism of the media above is why I thought it was significant that some of the more startling anonymous rumors about Palin were being reported first on Fox News. There is a general tendency here (on this blog) to complain about a liberal media bias. There are other kinds of complaints one might make about the media, but at least "liberal media bias" isn't the source of the problem here.

There is also the (more off-topic) issue of when it is acceptable to report what is said by anonymous sources acceptable and when it is not. I'd be interested in hearing opinions from those who are criticizing this particular example of it - maybe in a future blog post if that topic isn't appropriate here.

(In general, I find the media criticism here to be very interesting, and especially when it can be applied in a non-partisan way.)

I sincerely apologize for commenting three times in a row. But I didn't see anyone call for Palin to abort Trig. Does anyone know where this happened? Barone himself seems to be saying that he was joking.

I think the nearest thing to that was that people said she might be too busy with Trig to work (which was sexist), and there was criticism that she got onto a plane to fly to Alaska after her water broke instead of going to (or being near) a hospital.

I didn't see anyone call for Palin to abort Trig. Does anyone know where this happened?

At the time she was pregnant? Not that I know of, but then few outside of Alaska (and those of us following her career) were even aware of her pregnancy or its circumstances. There were certainly many people who criticized her decision after the fact, once she exploded into the limelight.

I meant during her campaign with McCain. I didn't see anyone (even lunatics) offer their opinions on whether or not she should have had her own baby. The criticisms I saw were the ones I listed above, plus silly stuff about birth records, and unrelated stuff about her pregnant daughter.

So the NRO isn't Republican now either?

Buckley, Parker etc... those guys?

To me, the most startling thing about this campaign was that I learned "no enemies to the Left" is a Republican, as well as a Democrat, thing.

You didn't see anything like this?

Bob, at least for me, "Fox News" doesn't mean we're not talking about journalists. You're thinking the thesis is there are "biased" journalists and "unbiased," or "left-biased" and "right-biased" or (ha ha) "unbiased."

Not by me. They're all messed up, and it's not bias so much as (1) incompetence and (2) the arrogance that comes from being a full-time critic and creator of nothing.

when it is acceptable to report what is said by anonymous sources acceptable and when it is not.

Never. Simple rule, huh?

But I'm far more radical than that! I'd also say it is also unacceptable to use the passive voice or what Wikipedia calls "weasel words" in a news report. You know, the old Some critics have maintained that the Bush Administration is a work of the Devil first predicted in the Gospel of St. Rufus or There have been suggestions that Governor Palin is a retard, when, in fact, the only "critics" or source of "suggestions" are the media themselves.

By me, if you can't find someone to actually say it, on the record, so you can report it straight-up in active voice, Senator Obama asked when Cindy McCain stopped sniffing glue today and Joe Threepack of Gary, Indiana, wants to know where his tax cut is because he's out of work again and behind on his child support, then you can't say it as a journalist, unless you sign your name to it.

I've occasionally wondered how one could implement that without running afoul of the First Amendment. My solution (bwa ha ha) is to reverse the burden of proof in a libel or slander case if the statement is made without identifiable attribution. In other words, if you report something from an "anonymous source" or using weasel words ("some people say...") or in the passive voice ("it's said that...") then, if someone (even a public figure) sues you for libel or slander you the defendant have to prove the truth and nonmaliciousness of your statement. If, on the other hand, you use the active voice, or give a source, then as usual the plaintiff has to prove the falsity and malice of the statement.

National Review is conservative, not Republican. Kathleen Parker doesn't work for NR--she's a syndicated columnist who has occasionally had pieces published there (as have I). I have no idea what Buckley's current political party is, but it clearly isn't Republican, since he endorsed Obama.

It wasn't Republicans demanding that she show her hospital records to prove that she hadn't faked her pregnancy.

Isn't Andrew Sullivan the poster boy for that lost cause?

I must admit that I raised an eyebrow at the idea that a woman would fly that far after her water had broken.

Isn't Andrew Sullivan the poster boy for that lost cause?

Can you provide any credible evidence that Andrew Sullivan has been a Republican in the last few years?

"I must admit that I raised an eyebrow at the idea that a woman would fly that far after her water had broken."

Had it actually broken? I'd heard "leakage."

I still say it's intra-party backstabbers. It's the same phenomenon that drives all of those White House tell-alls and Colin Powell vs. Donald Rumsfeld "anonymous sources": they're trying to push their agenda and deny blame.

Totally in agreement about the media, though.

I didn't see anyone (even lunatics) offer their opinions on whether or not she should have had her own baby. The criticisms I saw were the ones I listed above, plus silly stuff about birth records, and unrelated stuff about her pregnant daughter.

Here's another one. And another one.

the only "critics" or source of "suggestions" are the media themselves.

Such as the "kill him" story.

I must admit that I raised an eyebrow at the idea that a woman would fly that far after her water had broken.

Like what the fuck would you know about it, person without a uterus? Been pregnant four times, have you, like Governor Palin? Talked to an obstetrician first, did you, like she did?

Christ, sometimes the arrogance is a little thick. You want to make sure no pregnant woman you know reads this, Daveon, especially while in labor. You're likely to get a sensible but elegant shoe right up the arse.

The convenient rewriting of standards on the left is also nauseating. Let's see, if young Hillary (say) got herself knocked up at age 16, dithered around deciding what to do, and then decided to abort the baby in its sixth month -- well, that's just her business, innit? Who are we to go judging an' all? Asking impertinent questions like how did this happen or why did you wait so long? What does this have to do with her judgment as (say) a Senator or potential President? What are you, some kind of crypto-fascist defender of the Old White Male Patriarchy™?

On the other hand, if forty-year-old Sarah, mother of five, after consulting with her OB, decides it's OK to fly home with a little dribble in her ninth month -- whoa! Aren't their airline rules about that? Don't we need to have a national discussion about her judgment? Clearly she's a careless mother (and it's a miracle her four other children have survived to adolescence, especially in a house filled with guns and, I dunno, gas stoves and such). Really, how do we know this woman will handle classified intelligence about nuclear weapons competently if she does screwball things like that?

Blech. When did the moderate left turn into such cynically amoral yet neo-Victorian judgmental prigs?

It's not just Ayers. That Obama would be "friends" (for pretty much any value of "friends") with Ayers is concerning, but there's more. The problem is the pattern. Ayers. Michelle Obama. Reverend Wright. Etc. Etc. Etc. There's a trend here, and that trend is a fundamental distrust and/or hatred of America. When a person's friends and family exhibit this behavior one tends to wonder about the true feelings and motivations of that person. And the idea of a President who is fundamentally ill at ease with supporting America is more than a little disconcerting.