Patterico's Pontifications

1/13/2009

Other Than That, You’ve Described Him Pretty Well . . .

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:05 pm



Sarah Palin has slammed “bored, anonymous, pathetic bloggers who lie.”

She’s obviously confused. Andrew Sullivan is his real name.

18 Responses to “Other Than That, You’ve Described Him Pretty Well . . .”

  1. Ironic – Sullivan churned out four separate posts on Palin just today. I’d say he’s still seriously crushing on her. He. Just. Can’t. Quit. Her.

    Dana (137151)

  2. I really do pray to dear Jesus all these MSM lunatics really do die of the most painful cancer and then proceed to eternity in a worse hell.

    What kind of (evil) person are you to continue with this insanity? As a parent, I would be tempted to go postal in the newsroom if someone question my child’s paternity, let alone maternity.

    Then the MSM wonder why no one reads their papers and magazines anymore.

    We are just disgusted with these deranged liberals and conspiracy theorists.

    Da'Shiznit (dc4a50)

  3. She is all he wishes he were and is not, I think. But it’s partly his fault. Did he even try out for Miss Alaska?

    nk (9097f8)

  4. He. Just. Can’t. Quit. Her.

    You made me blow beer through my nose with that one Dana! Spot on.

    Sullivan was pretty despicable over Sarah Palin. But anonymous, not really.

    Joe (17aeff)

  5. Unfortunately, the LAST thing Power-Glutes is is anonymous.

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  6. Translating Journalize #27

    The subject was not cooperative = The subject would not say what we wanted him to.

    Alan Kellogg (e4d258)

  7. You read the update to the CNN story linked, it reads that the ADN editor stated on the paper’s blog that they hadn’t been asking questions. But you go to the blog itself and it reads that the paper has not published a story, but did, in fact, have a reporter asking questions in December, because of the nutroots not letting this go.

    Loren (af2946)

  8. You mean, “he wishes he knew how to quit her”.

    Rich Fader (295108)

  9. The LA Times has one more Palin Derangement Syndrome story up today. Hopefully, the author will be one of the next 100 to get pink slips. Actually, Camille Paglia (scroll down to Cavett story) is far more objective about her.

    As I have repeatedly said in this column, I have never had the slightest problem in understanding Sarah Palin’s meaning at any time. On the contrary, I have positively enjoyed her fresh, natural, rapid delivery with its syncopated stops and slides — a fabulous example of which was the way (in her recent interview with John Ziegler) that she used a soft, swooping satiric undertone to zing Katie Couric’s dippy narcissism and to assert her own outrage as a “mama grizzly” at libels against her family.

    Ideology-driven attacks on Palin became clotted liberal clichés within 24 hours of her introduction as John McCain’s running mate. What a bunch of tittering lemmings the urban elite have become in this country. From Couric’s vicious manipulations of video clips to Cavett’s bourgeois platitudes, the preemptive strike on Palin as a potential presidential candidate has grossly misfired. Whatever legitimate objections may be raised to Palin on political grounds (explored, for example, by David Talbot in Salon) have been lost in the amoral overkill that has defamed a self-made woman of concrete achievement in the public realm.

    And let me take this opportunity to say that of all the innumerable print and broadcast journalists who have interviewed me in the U.S. and abroad since I arrived on the scene nearly 20 years ago, Katie Couric was definitively the stupidest. As a guest on NBC’s “Today” show during my 1992 book tour, I was astounded by Couric’s small, humorless, agenda-ridden mind, still registered in that pinched, tinny monotone that makes me rush across the room to change stations whenever her banal mini-editorials blare out at 5 p.m. on the CBS radio network. And of course I would never spoil my dinner by tuning into Couric’s TV evening news show. That sallow, wizened, drum-tight, cosmetic mummification look is not an appetite enhancer outside of Manhattan or L.A. There’s many a moose in Alaska with greater charm and pizazz.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  10. Criticizing Sarah Palin is like criticizing the Sacred Virgin. Except for the virgin part, obviously.

    Pants (86f13d)

  11. Comment by Mike K — 1/14/2009 @ 9:12 am

    Someone should put together a joint Paglia-Palin, Town-Hall style speaking tour hitting the major, and minor, colleges and universities.
    These two could devastate most questioners from the audience, and it would drive her, Palin’s, popularity ratings through the roof.

    AD (1d0fdb)

  12. No, Pants, but we would like a legitimate criticism once in a while. Not the she “believes in dinosaurs and cavemen”, not the book banning, the Trig trutherism, the quote that mentioned Diomede Island, nor ‘seeing Russia from her house, the lies about her oldest son, or the “Africa is a country”
    etc. Or that she doesn’t believe in birth control, Come up with an actual criticism about her policies, her views and we’ll listen to you

    narciso (57971e)

  13. Why would I criticize her? Being for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it and not knowing any Supreme Court cases is just the kind of regular American leadership we need. Palin/Wurzelbacher 2012!

    Pants (86f13d)

  14. You mean when she raised objections to the cost in several of the 2006 gubernatorial debates, the same bridge that Obama and Biden voted for instead of Katrina relief; please pretend to get a clue. As for Supreme Court decisions, she was likely not to bring up the McCain/Feingold decisions, because she probably was opposed to them, Hamdi and Boumedienne, which gave rights to terrorist they never had before. The Kennedy case, where the Court misread the case, the Kelo case, which was another atrocity of legal reasoning. Your problem with her is you know exactly which kinds of cases, she would oppose and she would favor. Nice try,thank for playing.

    narciso (ce69ff)

  15. [TnJ’s name changes are getting more desperate and silly.]

    It’s not that it’s wrong to criticize her, “Pants”. It’s about ‘criticizing’ her by creating, repeating, and refusing to retract outright LIES about her.

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  16. Icy, it is easier that way. Look at Paglia. Paglia is a very left of center type, but has disconnected the personal from the political. I defy anyone to claim that Paglia is stupid.

    And she likes and respects Palin, and denounces people like Sullivan and our resident trolls. She would not vote for Palin, I’m certain, but that isn’t the point.

    Paglia is an honorable opponent. I don’t often agree with her politics, but I respect her opinions, and read what she writes carefully. Paglia makes the Left look good.

    People who confuse Tina Fey and Jon Stewart routines with facts? Not so much.

    Eric Blair (3e2520)

  17. As usual, Eric, you summarize things better than my rambling defense, manages to get around to. My one quibble, with Camille, this time around, is that she gives Talbot, fresh of his failed JFK conspiracy tome, a sliver of credibility; since these are people who were forced out of office on public corruption grounds. with that particular piece; also Talbot allowed Salon in general to be
    the purveyor of some of the crazier memes about her. I should have suspected it was either TnJ or love2008.

    narciso (57971e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3372 secs.