The Liberal Obsession With Sarah Palin Reaching New Heights

Posted on by ( 167 comments already! )
Spread the love

Loading

Charles Krauthammer is his usual awesome self here during a segment on PBS in which he points out how the show he is visiting, and liberals in general, are simple obsessed…mind-numbingly, compulsively obsessed with Sarah Palin:

I know none of you need any evidence of this obsession since we see it daily, but here is just one very recent example. “Comedian” Sandra Bernhard laying into Sarah and her daughter, calling Bristol a hooker: (h/t Newbusters)



What a nasty bunch that was. Strong symbols for feminism they are not.

I always find it humorous how the left insists that Sarah Palin has no credibility, as a person or a politician, but freak out, I mean just FREAK out with any Sarah news nugget. Whether it comes from Todd, their kids, or Sarah herself.

If she has no credibility then what the hell are they worried about?

What a sick demented bunch these liberal’s afflicted with PDS are.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
167 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

and oh, BTW, imbecile, the “dim” candidate was always part of the original question. However I’d be happy to hear your fairytale of how the conservatives or GOP or otherwise smeared McCain as an election campaign strategy by personal assaults on his children. Do regale us.

0

No matter where Sarah goes, many follow. 😛

0

Hey look, Sarah has her own word in the dictionary:

palingenesis \pal-in-JEN-uh-sis\, noun:

1. Rebirth; regeneration.
2. In biology, embryonic development that reproduces the ancestral features of the species.
3. Baptism in the Christian faith.
4. The doctrine of transmigration of souls.

How fitting!

0

The Anatomy of a Smear Campaign

The anatomy of a smear campaign

By Richard H. Davis | March 21, 2004

Every presidential campaign has its share of hard-ball political tactics, but nothing is more discomforting than a smear campaign. The deeply personal, usually anonymous allegations that make up a smear campaign are aimed at a candidate’s most precious asset: his reputation. The reason this blackest of the dark arts is likely to continue is simple: It often works.

The premise of any smear campaign rests on a central truth of politics: Most of us will vote for a candidate we like and respect, even if we don’t agree with him on every issue. But if you can cripple a voter’s basic trust in a candidate, you can probably turn his vote. The idea is to find some piece of personal information that is tawdry enough to raise doubts, repelling a candidate’s natural supporters.

All campaigns do extensive research into their opponent’s voting record and personal life. This so-called “oppo research” involves searching databases, combing through press clips, and asking questions of people who know (and preferably dislike) your opponent. It’s not hard to turn up something a candidate would rather not see on the front page of The Boston Globe.

It’s not necessary, however, for a smear to be true to be effective. The most effective smears are based on a kernel of truth and applied in a way that exploits a candidate’s political weakness.

Having run Senator John McCain’s campaign for president, I can recount a textbook example of a smear made against McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 presidential primary. We had just swept into the state from New Hampshire, where we had racked up a shocking, 19-point win over the heavily favored George W. Bush. What followed was a primary campaign that would make history for its negativity.

In South Carolina, Bush Republicans were facing an opponent who was popular for his straight talk and Vietnam war record. They knew that if McCain won in South Carolina, he would likely win the nomination. With few substantive differences between Bush and McCain, the campaign was bound to turn personal. The situation was ripe for a smear.

It didn’t take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used “push polling” to suggest that McCain’s Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the “pollster” determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the “pollsters” asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that’s not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle.

Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to “fellow South Carolinians” stating that McCain had “chosen to sire children without marriage.” It didn’t take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: “Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock.” Hand replied, “Wait a minute, that’s a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren’t any?”

Campaigns have various ways of dealing with smears. They can refute the lies, or they can ignore them and run the risk of the smear spreading. But “if you’re responding, you’re losing.” Rebutting tawdry attacks focuses public attention on them, and prevents the campaign from talking issues.

We chose to address the attacks by trying to get the media to focus on the dishonesty of the allegations and to find out who was making them. We also pledged to raise the level of debate by refusing to run any further negative ads — a promise we kept, though it probably cost us the race. We never did find out who perpetrated these smears, but they worked: We lost South Carolina by a wide margin.

The only way to stop the expected mud-slinging in 2004 is for both President Bush and Senator Kerry to publicly order their supporters not to go there. But if they do, their behavior would be the exception, not the rule.

Richard H. Davis is president of the Reform Institute and a partner in Davis Manafort, a political consulting firm. He was a fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics in 2002. He was campaign manager for John McCain in 2000 and has worked in every presidential campaign since 1980.

0

I also see they never proved their claim about Limbaugh and Chelsea Clinton. Just goes to show that leftists ARE NOT independent thinkers or very intelligent. All they have proven they are full blown hypocrites who deliberately look the other way when their kind spews hate. The story liberals are quoting was a proven lie made up by Al Franken.

Below is the link and (Lexis-Nexus) transcript showing you lefties knowingly lied and tried to smear Rush yet again. Game. Set. Match. Go back to your coloring books. This site is for sane people, not mentally ill liberals.

http://lyingliar.com/?p=17

David Hinckley of–of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has–he’s got–it’s very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.’ Could–could we see the cute kid? Let’s take a look at–see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog (actually Gore’s dog))

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That’s not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That’s–that’s the kid. We’re trying to…

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: No, just kidding. I’m just getting. Oh. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. That was a terrible thing. That–that was an absolutely terrible–I am–I am sorry. You know, I just–the end of the week, the pressure’s on–actually the pressure’s off, and I relaxed a little bit too much. You know, when my radio show started in August of 1988, a presidential campaign then, and Amy Carter was protesting everything American while at Brown University. And I didn’t, of course, like that. I didn’t like her protesting everything American, and I made a remark on my show that I’ve now since apologized for and I’ve taken it back; I didn’t mean it. I said, You know, she may be the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country.’

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: Well, there was outrage. No, there was. I mean, there was just plenty–my–my mom called me at home that night. She said, Son, you know, you–if you’re going to be serious about this, you can’t make fun of the way people look. You’re not supposed to–you’re not–you can talk about how you disagree with Amy Carter. You can talk about how you disagree with her politics and you think she’s doing some bad things, but she can’t help the way she looks, and you can’t–you shouldn’t make fun of that. And, besides, you forgot Margaret Truman.’

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: But I–I apologize…

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: There I go. My friends, I apologize again. I–that’s the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton, and then I followed with that terrible story. I’m–I hope you’ll forgive me. I’m fatigued. I’m tired. I really don’t–in fact, you know what I’ll do? Let’s pretend this is a daytime talk show and that I’m a guest on, say, Sally, Phil or whatever. How can I make amends to you for what I just did? I can spank myself. People who spank themselves, next RUSH. Watch this. (Rush stands)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×5863476#5864508

0

Imbecile, is it possible that I have overestimated you for so long as a respected aversary (prior to this thread, anyway…)??? Is it possible you are far more “too stupid to vote” than I ever anticipated?

Apparently, yes.

I see you put no personal commentary into your cut/paste reply, to which you believe redeems yourself. So let me help you over your personal afflictions that prevent you from being even a personal advocate.

The charges are that, in the SC primary, Cindy was a drug addict, and that Bridget was a McCain illegitimate baby. The charges are this comes from a push poll, orchestrated by Karl Rove. That is, your “evidence” in a nutshell.

Now, enter “stupid”.

While I did not support, and still don’t support any campaigning (real or media manufactured) about about either Cindy or Bridget, there are still two realities.

1: Cindy is fair game because she was an active campaigner/spokeswoman/future FLOTUS

2: None of the poll campaign smeared Bridget, personally. What was in question is whether THE CANDIDATE… McCain… WAS LYING.

uh… does your 2004 lib/prog VEEP darling candidate with lots of hair, John Edwards, come to mind yet?

Now, this compares to Sarah Palin, who was accused of lying to the public and faking motherhood for Trig in order to protect Bristol – the subject of the smears/lies – HOW??? And how is such an act construed as not self-sacrificing.. even if true? In the case of McCain, were it true, it would have been to protect his butt. In the case of the Palins, it would have been to protect her daughter’s butt.

Despite the fact that neither is true, and considering the basic concept…. this is a problem for you?

Because you are comprehensive reading challenged, and insist upon parsing words, let me make this further clearer to one of elementary school intellect. No one was slamming Bridget as a derelict daughter, depending upon her mother candidate Daddy to redeem her from misjudgment.

You are, and remain, an imbecile.

0

None of the poll campaign smeared Bridget personally

Wow. You are truly a reprehensible creature, willing to defend anything under the sun rather than admit you’re wrong.

People in some areas of South Carolina began to receive phone calls in which self-described pollsters would ask, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

It was a reference to Bridget, who was adopted as a baby from an orphanage in Bangladesh and is darker skinned than the rest of the McCain family. Richard Hand, a professor at Bob Jones University, sent an e-mail message to “fellow South Carolinians” telling recipients that Mr. McCain had “chosen to sire children without marriage.”

Amazing. I guess blatant race baiting isn’t wrong in your book. Certainly it’s not a big deal compared to making fun of Britol Palin’s dance skills.

Keep going, please. This is a real education.

0

I did forget to add… “game, set, match”, imbecile.

0

Now it’s “race baiting”??? Is that because she’s described as black? Or illegitimate? Which will suit your easily offend’able description, Imbecile?

BWAHAHAHAHA… Tom. Yes, I admit. I have given you far too much credit in the past. mea culpa. I’m embarrassed the state sends you a ballot every year.

Considering if all the charges were true in both cases, there is no comparison that McCain would have been protecting his own ass, and Sarah would have been protecting Bristol’s ass.

Which also means that what you… the quintessential stupid voter… was unable to see is that the attack on Trig’s parentage was an attack on Bristol, and the attack on Bridget’s parentage was an attack on McCain.

You are, and remain, and EMBARRASSINGLY stupid imbecile.

0

Gosh darn… you really are stupid enough to need further clarification with our cross comments, Imbecile.

Wow. You are truly a reprehensible creature, willing to defend anything under the sun rather than admit you’re wrong.

People in some areas of South Carolina began to receive phone calls in which self-described pollsters would ask, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

Tell me.. is that an attack against Bridget, or an attack against McCain, Imbecile? Just who is that smearing?

Conversely, a child that Bristol did not have is now attributed to her.

uh.. ahem… who is that smearing?

Scared for my nation, if voters are this low in wattage….

0

You are, and remain, and EMBARRASSINGLY stupid imbecile.

And you’re a racist old hag. And now everyone knows.

0

I’ll accept the “old hag” label with grace, Imbecile. A characteristic you are unfamiliar with.

The “racist” tag? In your dreams, imbecile. More than extremely laughbable when you exit your imaginary and impressionist cyber world. But you enjoy your little ignorant world. Keep the pipe filled.

0

CURT I THINK YOU MUST COME AND CHECK ON TOM, HE HAS CROSS THE GATE
MANY TIMES AND THIS IS ONE THAT HE SHOULD NOT GET AWAY WITH, BYE

0

Ms. Bees… don’t sweat Imbecile’s comments. Truly, he’s no more than a mosquito, lightly landing and flying off prior to digging in for blood, on a soft summer’s day. I don’t need a rescue.

It’s a free forum. We all want it to remain a free forum. Those like Tom, aka Imbecile, leave behind a legacy for lurkers. Some will agree, or disagree with Imbecile. That is exactly what we all want… enough debate and info to form their own opinions. Even if they never say anything before traveling away in their cyber journey.

But it’s nice you feel you have to have my back. I assure you… gnat on an elephant’s butt this all is to me.

0

MATA; YOU HAVE AN EXCEPTIONAL PATIENCE, I HAVE NOTICE BEFORE MANY TIMES,
THIS GUY IS MOST LIKELY BEING PAID BY THE OTHER PARTY, TO ASSAULT THE CONSERVATIVES BLOGS,, HE NEVER DENYED IT TOO.
BYE

0

MATA, IT DOES’NT LOOK GOOD FOR THE DEMOCRATS ,THAT THEY REPRESENTS,
AND WHAT THEY NAME THE CONSERVATIVES IS TURN ONTO THEM, WHEN WE KNOW
THE TOLERANCE WITH THE LOCALS HERE AT FA, THIS IT GRAND CLASS HERE, COMPARE TO THE MENTALITY OF THOSE TROLLS, THEY HAVE A LOT TO LEARN FROM THE CONSERVATIVES BEFORE THEY THEY ELEVATE THEIR CAPACITY TO EXCHANGE HERE WITH OUR GROUPS EVEN WITH THE DIVERSITY OF ALL OF US, THEY CANT MATCH ONE ON ONE.

0

@Tom:

And you’re a racist old hag. And now everyone knows.

“The evasion and the insults aren’t very becoming, [Tom].

[C]onfused, angry ranting rarely flatters the source.

You have been asked politely to provide proof of what you’ve claimed and you’ve refused. You also could of walked away…and we would have been left to draw our own conclusions from that, but instead it’s just more insults.

The path you’ve chosen is perplexing one to me, to say the least.”

Here’s the question again for ease of reference:

What conservatives and bloggers have waged an election campaign personal assault on the family members of a Dim candidate, as did the lib/progs in 2008 on the Palin family?

0

Aye… I’ve learned something from Imbecile. We may have to lower our standards of English composition. You see, the imbecile thinks that because the name of Bridget McCain was evoked, the assault was actually against her and not McCain himself. Despite the words, “waged an election campaign personal assault on the family members of a Dim candidate”, the mere mention of one of the children’s names now pass that test to the vocabulary and grammatically challenged. Frankly, I was amazed I had to explain such a simplistic thrust. I mean, it’s like having to explain that the noun is the subject, and the verb is the action the subject takes, fer heaven’s sake.

Can’t blame him for his Ayer’s public education, right? I suppose I’d be more benevolent to his stupidity and lack of comprehension were but it for his self-congratulatory delusions. But hey… when you have this insecure of a human, it becomes a balancing act of stimulating, abusing, and possibly further damaging a mentally incapacitated person by simple cyber communication. Obviously, in the imbecile’s case, “educating” is a lost cause in that laundry list of verbs and adverbs. It’s a careful line to tread, I admit.

0

Mata, you have been quite persistent and patient. However, I think you’ve bent over backwards enough since we have 124 posts and no answer.

0

Dang, Hard Right… the honorary thread NOBLE (sp error deliberate…) prize for math and counting comments goes to YOU! LOL

0

Hard Right Lets be clear.Rush called for a picture of the cute kid in the W.H. and his assistant put up a picture of Millie the dog.He apologized and picture of Chelsea put up.Stupid mistake.O.K.

On June 16 of this year on his radio show he mockingly affected 10 yr old Malia Obama’s voice and her concern for the B.P. oil spill.No apologies.Beck had apologized for mocking Malia on his May 28th show.

As stated before I feel Aye and Mata are outstanding advocates of true Conservative principles.
I believe you to be a foul mouthed fear mongering reactionary.AND PROUD OF IT.

Semper Fi

0

Hard Right; hi, MATA DOES’NT COUNT AND HAS HIT THE NUMBER 100 4 TIMES ON A ROW,
IMAGINE WHAT SHE COULD DO IF SHE COUNT

0

Well Mata, those little number thingies on each post helped. Normally I’d be naked and unable to count higher than 23. 😳

I believe you to be a foul mouthed fear mongering reactionary.AND PROUD OF IT.

Project much, Rich?
Tell ya what, I’ll check on the Malia thing when I get the chance. Contrary to what at least one of you three lefties on this thread think, I’m not a Rush regular.

0

@rich wheeler, thank you for the kind words for your political adversaries. But surely you weren’t representing those events as anything even close to the lib/progs electoral smear campaign on Bristol and Trig when Palin was announced as VP, were you?

Don’t make me put you in the cyber corner with the Imbecile, please.

0

@ilovebeeswarzone: it appears rich wheeler holds the dubious honor of the 100th commenter… not me. Perhaps your congrats need to go elsewhere? :0)

HR… so *that’s* what those numbers above the comments represent! 😆 Ok, I’m a meat and potatoes kinds of girl. When I see the meat of the comments, I head right for the potatoes complement… and I sure don’t pay attention to what course in the dinner order it is!

But, as I mentioned above, in this case, the congrats are premature, and erroneous. Not sure what you get, rich wheeler. But celebrate hearty!

PS: HR: Normally I’d be naked and unable to count higher than 23.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Now, don’t you be annoying Ms. HR with that stuff!

0

MATA; GEEZ DARN NO NOT RICH WHEELER, HE SHOULD RESIGN HIS PRICE AND GIVE IT
TO HIS FAVORIT CONSERVATIVE, AND THAT WOULD BE YOU , AND YOU EARNED IT MORE THAN HIM, HE NEVER COMMENTED MORE THAN 2 OR 3 LINES,

0

Mata, I’m not supposed to annoy my better half? That would take away one of the few things I do really well. Now where’s the fun in that? :mrgreen:

Well everyone, this fear mongering reactionary is going to bed. Night all and don’t let the bed bugs bite.

0

‘night your bad reactionary self, HR. LOL

0

In your dreams, imbecile.

I admit, it’s possible you’re not a racist. You could be just really stupid. Case in point (all DrMata: quotes)

Which also means that what you… the quintessential stupid voter… was unable to see is that the attack on Trig’s parentage was an attack on Bristol, and the attack on Bridget’s parentage was an attack on McCain.

Tell me.. is that an attack against Bridget, or an attack against McCain, Imbecile? Just who is that smearing?

. You see, the imbecile thinks that because the name of Bridget McCain was evoked, the assault was actually against her and not McCain himself.

Interesting analysis, DrMata. It’s all about MCain and not his daughter. Well, there’s your opinion, there’s my opinion, and then there’s the McCain family opinion, which just happens to be the same as my opinion. (Interestingly, they also appear to agree with me on the source of the smear.)

From an interview with Meghan McCain:

MCCAIN: I can be behind my father all day every day.
COLMES: Sure.
MCCAIN: . until the end of time. I just couldn’t get behind President Bush. I just couldn’t. It’s personal.
COLMES: Yes. You couldn’t get behind President Bush?
MCCAIN: It’s personal. I was 19 at the time.
HANNITY: And it’s a primary 2000.
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: Hold on, let’s.
MCCAIN: It had to do with my little sister, and like, you know, you were just saying that the wounds of a political child run really deep. And there are things that I don’t know if I’ll ever completely get over.
COLMES: Was it because of what happened in 2000 during the campaign?
MCCAIN: Yes.

Did you see that about her LITTLE SISTER, DrMata?

Thus, DrMata again, your credibility goes up in smoke. Will the little goblin sycophant cowards you bully at FA finally crawl out of the cyber cracks and join me in a hearty rendition of “Ding, Dong the Witch is Dead” (the wicked witch, the racist witch) ?

Farewell, DrMata. I can’t waste any more time here with you. You’ve lost your response privileges. No challenge, no fun.

Aye, you’re still in the game. but come back stronger next time. Peace.

0

Did you see that about her LITTLE SISTER, DrMata?

Still suffering from the inadequacy of nouns, verbs, subject, and actions, eh imbecile? So we now can assume that because an adopted daughter of black heritage calls her McCain family sibling a “sister”, it’s all true INRE the accusations directed at McCain, the candidate, for lying about parentage (and NOT assaults directed at Bridget).

You remain, pathetic, disappointing, and way too stupid to vote. And now, you’re a McCain/Bridget conspiracist. Wow! I’ll bet there’s a slot waiting for you at the Truther’s convention, if you’re not already registered.

the imbecile: Farewell, DrMata. I can’t waste any more time here with you. You’ve lost your response privileges. No challenge, no fun.

Oh thank heavens…. if I didn’t believe there was a compassionate God, I am now reassured…. The sound of you, scurrying away into the underbrush is simply music to my ears.

Hopefully you will remember this in your future endeavors when you reappear (or not) to embarrass your ignorant a$$ here at FA. You have, as HR pointed out, been an unbelievable waste of my time. But then, what an educational treat to lurkers here on the parsing of words, LALALALA finger in the ears mentality of you and your fellow lowest of the low lib/prog friends. (oh yes, to you, that may also mean Democratic Party members… have at it, bucko)

Maybe, since he still holds your esteem (so sorry Aye…), Aye will repeat the question you still cannot answer in defense of your erroneous ‘tudes, eh?

0

Not to worry Bee’s…I’m constantly monitoring and as we’ve all seen on many occasions, Mata can handle herself quite nicely.

While I’m not surprised to see Tom bring up race (it gets injected into nearly every comment he makes) the end result of his tirades were an eye opener. As Yoda would say – “His buttons easily she pushed.”

0

I accept the 😆 100th award with gratitude and humility.

On the other hand my Senate ( repubs p.u. 5-8 seats) and House (repubs p.u. 58-68 seats) predictions on A.C.’S site were f’ing awesome.

0

I know it hurts 😥 you deeply. 👿 RJW. i wasn’t even tryin 😉

0

@MataHarley: #120

Truly, he’s no more than a mosquito….

Avon Skin So Soft repels mosquitos very well. Maybe it will repel liberal pests too.

0

@ Tom…as per usual, Mata smoked your @ss like a cheap cigar. She easily refuted your tripe, found out where your pet goat was parked and fed it.

Tommy, continue to spew your stuff here and continue to be refuted. Your insulting tone tells me that you ran out of “logic ammunition” and resorted to slinging Cow Pies.

You missed! So pack up your kit bag, Jocko…and Thanks For Playing.

I hope that the Brain Fairy left you a bag of Quarters for what He took.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm86M2TKFDk&feature=related

Link courtesy of My Daughter who lurks here.

0

Old Trooper 2 “I hope that the Brain Fairy left you a bag of Quarters for what He took.”

LMAO!

0

@ Tom needs to check under his pillow. 😉

It ain’t Stimulus Money!

0

Mata —

Tom flat out smoked you! GOPer cons in South Carolina basically called McCain’s daughter a Black bastard child. You don’t think that is an attack on the child AND the father? Really? Well Meghan McCain and Bridget McCain certainly took it that way. You think Cindy might have taken it that way? Uh, yeah . . . you think the other McCain kids didn’t take it as an attack on this girl who had grown up with the family? I bet they did!

Face facts — GOPer cons used a child to make a political point. They played in the gutter to get McCain in 2000. There is no rational argument otherwise.

0

Uh oh Mata, Braindead rob just declared Tom the victor. That carries soooooo much weight. (heavy, dripping sarcasm)

0

No surprise, HR. I was wondering how long it would take Billy Bob to come in to seize the opportunity to play his usual racist card.

What I find particularly amusing is that, in the 21st century, there is still anal retentive and bigoted people around, like Billy Bob, who blame a child for parentage out of wedlock… calling them (regardless of sex) “bastards”.

First of all, it takes an extremely disgusting type of person to blame a child for his or her birth, instead of the actions of the parents.

Secondly, considering that a 2009 NYTs article states that 4 out of every 10 births in the US in 2007 were out of wedlock or illegitimate, he’s pretty much painting almost half of all the newest US citizens with a pretty ugly term. Nice.

That said, it still becomes an enigma as to what Billy Bob finds offensive… that Bridget is black and adopted into a white family? Or that the poll asked *if* McCain had fathered a child out of wedlock (who happens to be black), would that affect their votes?

As I stated, I don’t approve of the push poll as it was reported. Nor did I see it’s actual wording or context. Don’t live in SC, so I don’t even know if it’s true or not. But I consider asking voters about a candidate, who may have been irresponsible enough to father a child out of wedlock, a question about moral values and behavior to be related to that candidate… not the child in question. And it’s greatest offense is not that they are asking about moral behavior, but that it was asking about an unproved rumor, and not a fact.

But then, I’m not Billy Bob… frothing at the bit to find avenues to scream “racist” at every turn.

In the case of Bristol, they were accusing her of lying about Trig and his parentage. A completely different smear campaign.

The amusing thing is that Bridget is not McCain’s genetic child, but is, indeed, an adopted child. Yet here we have Edwards, and his love child. Edwards kept this under wraps until well after the election. But what if Dim voters had known in advance, and had been asked if they would find Edwards as appealing a veep candidate *because* he had fathered a white illegitimate child…. or, in Billy Bob speak, “a white bastard”?

Again, what does that have to do with the child, who had no control over it’s birth and parentage? Nothing, of course. What does it have to do with Edwards’ morality? Everything. Is asking about his moral behavior a legitimate question? I’d say so. I would have no objections to a Dim poll that would ask the same about Edwards.

But racists bond like no other… whether they are the scum of the KKK, or the reverse racists like Billy Bob. Certainly hope all those kids that Billy Bob considers “bastards” don’t have to deal with him much in their lifetimes.

0

OLD TROOPER 2; I just love the position of the little girl and the song so matching that little girl,
by the way is she JANA AT THIS AGE, LOVELY THANK YOUR DAUGHTER

0

@MataHarley:

As I stated, I don’t approve of the push poll as it was reported. Nor did I see it’s actual wording or context. Don’t live in SC, so I don’t even know if it’s true or not.

This comment was in the above posted Anatomy of a Smear:

We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made.

Both Karl Rove and Karen Hughes denied that the Bush team had anything to do with any of it. Push polling the GOP did was about McCain’s POW committee work, the Keating 5 and other issues McCain had been involved in. All transcripts for the South Carolina push polling were released.

I remember reading in Karen Hughes book, Ten Minutes from Normal… after the primaries members of the Bush campaign team, including that evil Rove, Hughes, GW & Laura and a few others were invited to McCain’s Arizona home for a big bar-b-que. Had John and Cindy thought any of them were behind that incident, I doubt the hot tempered McCain would be hosting a bar-b-que and having them into their home where there children are present.

Almost forgot, the GOP would not have been running anything against either candidate in a primary.

0

Missy, I fully agree there is little we know about this “push poll”, save that the media and left internet world pointed it’s finger at Rove.

The interesting dichotomy of it all is that one of the hallmarks of a push poll is that you do not know what group is conducting it. Therefore, to pinpoint Rove or the GOP as its source is a misinformation media campaign in itself.

While we’re playing the speculation game, could not such a push poll – real or imagined since I’ve seen no verifiable source confirmation it actually took place – also have originated from a leftist source, preferring to run Al Gore against Bush instead of McCain? After all, they thought Bush would be an easy mark.

And to that real or imagined end, how does one confirm this happened? Find those that were called? As the very definition and purpose of push polls are not to gather numbers, but to spread “dis”information and influence voters, how the heck do we find the recipients of these calls? Did they come forward? Can we confirm they are really recipients, or just moving forward their own agenda? Who the heck knows.

But overall, my question related not to whether it was a party or ideological movement that was doing the smear campaign, but if it was directed at the candidate, or was a smear directed at the children (ala Bristol lying about Trig’s birth). Real or imagined, it’s still a question about a candidate’s moral behavior, and not a reflection on the child… unless, of course, you’re a person like Billy Bob, harboring disdain for “bastards”, as he calls them.

0

@MataHarley:

It appears the two little boys are not able to face facts even when they are being hit in the face with them. Instead they launch into a time consuming search and this is all they were able to come up with?

Answering your question would not be something they are capable of, they are morally challenged “bastards.” Mr. Arthur Ritis is picking on me today, sure don’t have the patience you have profoundly exhibited throughout this little tag team event the fraudsters are trying to pull off. 😉

0

@ B-Rob…OMG Cons again? Get a Life Bud. Your CON issue is your thing. Now, is CON STILL your N word? Get off the Labeling and name calling if you want any degree of credibility or civility.

Are You a Full Partner in your firm yet or still just an Amateur Ambulance Chaser that bills Clients for the time You spend posting tripe at FA? Those durned CONS are going to eat your lunch?

I just hired a Real Attorney to handle a few issues for me regarding the development of some Mineral Resources on my land. A young Guy with a Work Ethic. I’m going to do some Mining. Conservatives do that. Create Private Sector Jobs with Their Own Money, not file frivolous Lawsuits to put the bite on OPM, Other Peoples Money.

You are simply amazing. By the Way, You sling Cow pies poorly as well.

0

@ ilovebeeswarzone, Nope. Jana just sent me the link. But I thought it was cute.

0

@ B-Rob, check under your pillow. That Fairy may have left you a few Quarters…

0

@Hard Right:

Boobs are always better in pairs, eh?

0

@MataHarley: #146

Do you know how many actual “Billy Bobs” you are insulting by comparing them to this guy? Ignorant, brain dead, moron, etc. are OK, but using ACTUAL names is a no, no. What if MataHarley was a derogatory name and the lib commentors started calling ignorant, brain dead, moronic people MataHarlies?

As I stated, I don’t approve of the push poll as it was reported. Nor did I see it’s actual wording or context.

For years I have been saying the question should be posted, the ones who took the survey or poll should be listed, and who paid for it.

0

LOL Smorgasord!

But I assure you, “Billy Bob” is not B-Rob’s real name. I do know his real name, but would never disclose it because I respect his privacy and anonymity. It is but a nick name I made up, based on his B-Rob handle. B=”Billy” Rob=”Bob”. Also suitable because he’s quite the classic (if not insulting… which is a bonus) characterization of a hick in intelligence level.

But in deference to your comment, please allow me to apologize to all the “Billy Bob’s” out there who may take offense at being lumped in with this FA commenter I do call, and will still call, “Billy Bob”.

0

@MataHarley: #156

You’re starting to sound like one of those ignorant, brain dead, moronic MataHarlies now. LOL

0

Smorgasbord, is this your “don’t ask, don’t tell” moment? 😉

0

@MataHarley: #158

You MataHarlies are all the same: You keep changing the subject.

I just thought I would put the shoe on the other foot for a while and see how it fit. I’m taking it off now.

First of all, it takes an extremely disgusting type of person to blame a child for his or her birth, instead of the actions of the parents.

Since you mentioned this, I thought I would mention that I feel the same way about sexual orientation. I have mentioned that I call myself a neutralist because I want all of the facts about something new I have learned before I make any decisions.
I believe a person is born the way they are and don’t have a choice as to whether they will be gay or straight.

There also are thousands of babies born every year that have all of the male and female parts. The doctor asks the parents which one they want and makes it so, but they have the feelings of a male AND a female. I am told this is where the crossdressers come from. They have male and female feelings at the same time. They did not CHOOSE that kind of a life style.

The gays are the same way: Anyone who says being gay is a choice has to admit that being straight is also a choice. You can’t have one a CHOICE and the other NATURAL. Can anybody say they CHOSE to be straight? I didn’t choose it. It was in my genetic code. Being gay is in a person’s genetic code too. My belief on this subject has come from my more than 60 years of life.

I ain’t going to debate it, so please, no comments. It is just the way I believe after many years of wondering about it. We don’t have ANY choices at birth.

I don’t have a problem with gay guys. I am single and looking for the right woman and the more gay guys there are, the better chance I have.

0

Aye, yes pairs are better. Beats a single. 😆

0

Here we go again, the liberal putz, Olbermann obsessing about Bristol Palin’s public service announcement:

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: But our winner, Bristol Palin. She has done a public service announcement with this The Situation guy from TV’s “Jersey Shore.” It’s about abstinence and safe sex. Sadly, it is not a spoof done by “The Onion.”
~~~~

OLBERMANN: She’s the Candie’s spokesperson for abstinence? She and her son? Because it’s got to work this time? This is like saying George Bush kept us safe, except for that 9/11 thing which doesn’t count. Bristol Palin, abstinence role model, this time, today’s Worst Person in the World.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/30/keith-olbermann-attacks-bristol-palin-something-announced-18-months-a#ixzz173LnQNcB

Bristol responded to the bully:

What Mr. Olbermann lacks in originality he makes up for with insincere incredulity. Mr. Olbermann fails to understand that in order to have credibility as a spokesperson, it sometimes takes a person who has made mistakes. Parents warn their children about the mistakes they made so they are not repeated. Former gang members travel to schools to educate teenagers about the risks of gang life. Recovered addicts lecture to others about the risks of alcohol and drug abuse. And yes, a teen mother talks about the benefits of preventing teen pregnancy.

I have never claimed to be perfect. If that makes me the “worst person in the world” to Mr. Olbermann, then I must apologize for not being absolutely faultless like he undoubtedly must be.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/12/03/bristol-palin-strikes-back-olbermann-sorry-we-cant-all-be-perfect-you#ixzz173MuwuId

I don’t doubt the putz will resent getting his fingers slapped by the young Ms. Palin and will launch into another imbecile rant. It’s also clear from Bristol Palin’s response just who the mature adult is in this exchange and she will most likely be able to handle whatever comes of this with grace and dignity…..unlike Olbermann and idiots that might agree with and defend his spittle.

Mata, did you note….”and her son?”

0

Smorg You and I rarely agree and I know you asked for no comment but I must applaud your commentary in post #159.

I also got a kick out of the last line.I was for many years a realtor and mortgage banker in Laguna Beach Ca. a town very accepting of gays.I always figured the more guys that were gay the better the odds for us straight guys. I meet and married a caring,smart,beautiful woman at age 56(she was 37) and we’ve had 10 great years together.

My point is,keep your heart open,your body fit,your mind active and I know you will meet a great lady.

Semper Fi Richard

0

@rich wheeler: #162

Thank you, and I wish you and your family the best too.

0

I think it is unfair all those unionised leftists – schoolteachers, mailmen, car makers, and all those others that elected OBUMMA… are attacking Gov. Palin for putting targets on people that she – and the majority of us – hates. She is a big (easy) target for them. She is beautiful, and was a Governer! They are jealous that she got rich the American way – not with handouts, but by being on TV, and having loyal followers. She is our version of royalty, just like the Brits have – but, she is self made, not born into it. To bad they shot an innocent little girl.

0
1 2 3 4