Michelle Malkin » P.D.S. alert: Us magazine’s partisan hit job

P.D.S. alert: Us magazine’s partisan hit job

By Michelle Malkin • September 2, 2008 11:17 PM

The next time you’re waiting at the grocery stands and tempted to buy Us magazine, stop and think again. Unless you’re buying it for oppo research, you may not want to put money in the pockets of rabid partisans who have turned their gossip rag into a propaganda arm for the Democrat Party.

This is the cover of the latest issue of Us:

Now, let me remind you who and what Us magazine put on its June 19, 2008 cover:

A source forwards the following e-mail from former Clinton operative and Us weekly flack, Mark Neschis, that went out to all media in St. Paul:

Thought I would send over our Us Weekly/Sarah Palin cover story, on stands Friday, if helpful in your coverage. Might be useful as an illustration of how the news is playing out.(Us Weekly has 12 million, mostly female readers)

Mark Neschis
Corporate Communications Director
Wenner Media
Us Weekly | Rolling Stone | Men’s Journal

Steve Hayes notes that Us publisher Jann Wenner is a prominent Obama donor.

Wenner also publishes Rolling Stone, which deified Obama in March. Remember?:

The use of the gossip rags to shape the election is all part and parcel of the Brangelina-fication of the Obamas that I wrote about earlier this summer. They are pulling out all the stops to glorify The One and demonize all who stand in his way.

Truth, fairness, and decency be damned.

Palin Derangement Syndrome photoshop: David Lunde

***

Readers are leaving their two cents about Us magazine’s partisan hit job on the rag’s website here.

***

Ace:

The Tabloidization of Palin: The strategy is to deny her any credibility or gravitas by turning her into a tabloid soap-opera star.

Could it work? Sure, it could. But they have a lot running against them, too.

Let’s sort of remind them:

Bristol Palin, a 17 year old girl, is not, in fact, running for Vice President, and probably is not even eligible for the position until she successfully passes Civic Studies.

I know Obama would like to run against Bristol Palin. He might actually have more experience and gravitas than she does.

Then again, she’s quite young. In a few years, Barack will be salivating to run against Willow.

***

The National Enquirer jumps on the Palin-bashing bandwagon.

Posted in: Sarah Palin

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (472)

trackbacks (89)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]

#401

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm, Dan Lee said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm, mistressjustice said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm, Dan Lee said:
I am curious what standard “Mistressjustice” derives her version of “justice” from.. Because I can’t for the life of me see how any woman could stand by & not come to the defense of a 17 year old girl who’s life will already be hard enough because she’s made a very adult decision.

It’s not the girl’s fault that her mom has become a celebrity. I haven’t said one bad thing about the girl. It’s unfortunate that families get caught up in political crap. It is however, a reality.

You just can’t do it can you? You can’t forthrightly condemn the actions of the left under ANY circumstances. But you lefties will rail on a soldier who accidentally shoots a civilian in the course of a full out war.

You won’t however condemn your liberal foot soldiers for taking DIRECT AIM at a civilian in a political campaign..

Ok, I see how you are.. So does everyone else, “unfortunately”.
#402

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm, AlohaGuy said:

Don’t get me wrong, there are people here – some regulars – who have made me think

May I suggest interacting with them instead?

And some of us, navywife comes to mind and JimM, have complained about comments recently and the comments are gone, and perhaps the posters as well.

Now back to the topic of the thread…
#403

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm, mistressjustice said:

nyk: I just had to go there. This thread is starting to bore me though. You have a nice night.

JonB:

You’ll find a lot of info, by googling Rush Limbaugh, Chelsea, WhiteHouse dog.

I’m sure somebody will explain how he apologized about it later. Well, that was quite big of him to apologize, considering how Chelsea was 13 at the time. This is old news, I know, but politics ~~bring out~~ expose the worse in people. I do feel bad for Bristol Palin. She didn’t ask for this onslaught. This all will soon pass. Remember the drunken, partygirl Bush daughters? Yeah, I can hardly remember either. I do know that they grew up to be seemingly lovely young women.
#404

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm, edelweiss said:

As a young woman (24), I would love to see a woman elected President or VP.
I’d have loved to see Hillary on Obama’s ticket.
But not a woman like Sarah Palin, who thinks decisions about MY OWN BODY should be made by hateful old men or other Christian wingnuts.
We don’t want a woman who is a creationist, thinks science is a myth, preaches abstinence, but cannot even educate her own teen daughter.
Not a woman who thinks the GOP has anything to offer besides more war, more maimed/killed U.S. soldiers, more oil dependency, and hate.

We are not falling for it, Senator McCain. We all know you made a pathetic choice.
McCain still doesn’t get it that our support for Hillary was not about sex and anatomy. It was about values. Sarah Palin does not represent our dreams.

Palin was a pathetic choice and she is a disgrace to this country, she must be dumped. I think she is toasted.

No way. No how. No McCain. No Palin.

Please read this sweet story: “McCain More Likely to Drop Palin, Bookmakers Say”:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/friedman/gG5vYz
#405

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm, nativeaz08 said:

Sr. Editor from Us Magazine is going to explain the cover on Fox in a few minutes. I hope Fox mentions the Publisher’s donations to Obama …
#406

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm, DagneyT said:

Wooohooo, Michelle! You’ve rocked the world at “US” magazine! Here’s my contribution;

I could care less about your ridiculous magazine, but I am angry that my children and grandchildren are being fed your leftist pap! Your left leaning rag is trying to spread lies about an honorable woman!

You’ll have to answer for this someday. It could very well be the first Tuesday in November.

I feel a Reagan-esque landslide coming this fall…and that’s before Sarah’s speech tonight! As Rush said today, to paraphrase, “I hope their roof is well-secured!”
#407

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm, Dan Lee said:

mistressofjustice, I’ve heard Republican pundits take really cheap shots at family over social issues. I can honestly say that I’ve condemned their comments too.

Rush has definitely said many things I wouldn’t say, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong about “everything”, anymore than Barack Obama is.

My point is, every American needs to ask themselves where the line is, & how far we’ll keep letting it move towards barbarianism?

I mean look at the protesters at the RNC. They threw bleach & urine at people? I’ll tell you what.. With the presence of dangerous chemicals & terrorism in our world, that’s a good way to get shot. How do you know what people are throwing at you now?

All this behavior is leading this country down a very dangerous road. A road where people could go from being protesters to going to the morgue all in the same day.
#408

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm, DagneyT said:

But not a woman like Sarah Palin, who thinks decisions about MY OWN BODY should be made by hateful old men or other Christian wingnuts.

Edelweiss, you folks are so uninformed it sometimes makes me crazy. Here’s a few FACTS you obviously do not know:

1) Roe v. Wade is bad law, because there is nothing in the Constitution that defines “right to privacy” the way the court decided in that wrong-headed judgement.

2) There will never EVER be a time in America where you will have to go to a back alley abortion, as my generation had to do. When Roe v. Wade is overturned (and God is still in charge, so trust me, it will be) the decision will return to states.

3)Some states will say, “Okay, but only in the first trimester”, others (looney California comes to mind…not to mention Illinois) will say, “Whatever the lady wants…”

Now get a ~~life~~ er…mmm…an education!
#409

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm, Dan Lee said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm, edelweiss said:

As a young woman (24), I would love to see a woman elected President or VP.
I’d have loved to see Hillary on Obama’s ticket.
But not a woman like Sarah Palin, who thinks decisions about MY OWN BODY should be made by hateful old men or other Christian wingnuts.
We don’t want a woman who is a creationist, thinks science is a myth, preaches abstinence, but cannot even educate her own teen daughter.
Not a woman who thinks the GOP has anything to offer besides more war, more maimed/killed U.S. soldiers, more oil dependency, and hate.

We are not falling for it, Senator McCain. We all know you made a pathetic choice.
McCain still doesn’t get it that our support for Hillary was not about sex and anatomy. It was about values. Sarah Palin does not represent our dreams.

Palin was a pathetic choice and she is a disgrace to this country, she must be dumped. I think she is toasted.

No way. No how. No McCain. No Palin.

Please read this sweet story: “McCain More Likely to Drop Palin, Bookmakers Say”:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/friedman/gG5vYz

Are you telling other women what they can or cannot decide about Palin, in the same paragraph that you’re saying nobody should tell you what to do with your body? Kinda sounds like “We will not fall for it” is your socialist dream of convincing everyone else to be as dense & close minded as you are to Palin.

Thanks for giving us that link to that COMPLETELY unbiased news source about Palin quitting the race.. What a joke..

as you so eloquently put it: “We are not falling for it.”
#410

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm, travlinman said:

Don’t know if this has already been posted:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/42534/page/1

Let’s see how the MSM, including Newsweek, slither out of this article. Seems her qualifications to be Governor of Alaska, or her “radical” political positions were not in question then.
#411

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:55 pm, atheling said:

Dagney:

Idle Vice is a Euro.

‘Nuff said.
#412

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm, Dan Lee said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm, edelweiss said:

“Sarah Palin does not represent our dreams.”

I never thought I’d live with a generation who “dreams” about killing babies unabated..

I guess I though wrong..
#413

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm, nativeaz08 said:

Nope … no mention of the Publisher donating to Obama. RIDICULOUS. What’s wrong with these reporters? I can do better than them.
#414

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm, Omu said:
What is this garbage? Obama has said he emphatically disagrees with the intrusion into the Palin’s family life. He’s asked the media to “back off”, even. It’s totally unfair to attack Obama for this …

Convenient, isn’t it? He climbs “above it all” and makes pronouncements that no one other than the media even acknowledges, and they slobber all over themselves about how wonderful he is. Then the media reports all the filthy garbage that Senator Obama’s supporters spew all over the internet. HE doesn’t do anything but reap the rewards of their “politics of personal destruction©.”

ECS

©(William Jefferson Clinton)
#415

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:13 pm, rooster said:

It’s not the girl’s fault that her mom has become a celebrity. I haven’t said one bad thing about the girl. It’s unfortunate that families get caught up in political crap. It is however, a reality.

missinformedjustice,
This type of crap exists primarily with the scum that your ilk support on the left. Why is it that both of Bidens sons are indicted right now, and there is not a peep out of the left leaning morons that you so love?
#416

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

Travlinman — very good article, especially the closing paragraphs:

Although she has been in office less than a year, Palin, too, earns high marks from lawmakers on the other side of the aisle. During a debate earlier this year over a natural-gas bill, State Senate Minority Leader Beth Kerttula was astounded when she and another Democrat went to see the new governor to lay out their objections. “Not only did we get right in to see her,” says Kerttula, “but she asked us back twice—we saw her three times in 10 hours, until we came up with a solution.” Next week in Juneau, Alaska lawmakers will meet to overhaul the state’s system for taxing oil companies—a task Palin says was tainted last year by an oil-industry lobbyist who pleaded guilty to bribing lawmakers. Kerttula doesn’t expect to agree with the freshman governor on every step of the complex undertaking.

But the minority leader looks forward to exploiting one backroom advantage she’s long waited for. “I finally get to go to the restroom and talk business with the governor,” she says. “The guys have been doing this for centuries.” And who says that’s not progress?
#417

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

He’s asked the media to “back off”, even. It’s totally unfair to attack Obama for this …

What’s worse is Michelle Obama has been completely SILENT about all this for days. You would THINK, as a woman herself, who has a career and family, would come to her defense and take the classy and high road (asking for too much I suppose). I guess that would only happen if it was going to benefit her or her husband. Double standard. Is she really proud of her country now?
#418

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm, HappyGene said:

Wa Po is now covering the National Enquirer story. It’s not Wa Po’s fault, they were forced to cover it because the McCain camp denied it. SLUGS!!!
#419

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:24 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

Funny, I could swear a while back that everyone made fun of the National Enquirer and discounted them as tabloid trash. Now, all of a sudden they’re a legitimate news source?
#420

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm, L.N. Smithee said:

Thanks for the link, travlinman!

From Newsweek, October 15, 2007:

In Alaska, Palin is challenging the dominant, sometimes corrupting, role of oil companies in the state’s political culture. “The public has put a lot of faith in us,” says Palin during a meeting with lawmakers in her downtown Anchorage office, where—as if to drive the point home—the giant letters on the side of the ConocoPhillips skyscraper fill an entire wall of windows. “They’re saying, ‘Here’s your shot, clean it up’.” For Palin, that has meant tackling the cozy relationship between the state’s political elite and the energy industry that provides 85 percent of Alaska’s tax revenues—and distancing herself from fellow Republicans, including the state’s senior U.S. senator, Ted Stevens, whose home was recently searched by FBI agents looking for evidence in an ongoing corruption investigation. (Stevens has denied any wrongdoing.) But even as she tackles Big Oil’s power, Palin has transformed her own family’s connections to the industry into a political advantage. Her husband, Todd, is a longtime employee of BP, but, as Palin points out, the “First Dude” is a blue-collar “sloper,” a fieldworker on the North Slope, a cherished occupation in the state. “He’s not in London making the decisions whether to build a gas line.”

In an interview with NEWSWEEK, Palin said it’s time for Alaska to “grow up” and end its reliance on pork-barrel spending. Shortly after taking office, Palin canceled funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere,” a $330 million project that Stevens helped champion in Congress. The bridge, which would have linked the town of Ketchikan to an island airport, had come to symbolize Alaska’s dependence on federal handouts. Rather than relying on such largesse, says Palin, she wants to prove Alaska can pay its own way, developing its huge energy wealth in ways that are “politically and environmentally clean.”

Now that’s what I call CHANGE!
#421

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm, HappyGene said:

No Wa Po is only covering the McCain denial of the National Enquirer (it’s worse than the story MM linked to). You know what; she’s getting Borked.
#422

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

This will backfire on the Dems.
#423

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:30 pm, St. Louis Blue said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm, edelweiss said:

As a young woman (24), I would love to see a woman elected President or VP.
I’d have loved to see Hillary on Obama’s ticket.
But not a woman like Sarah Palin, who thinks decisions about MY OWN BODY should be made by hateful old men or other Christian wingnuts.
We don’t want a woman who is a creationist, thinks science is a myth, preaches abstinence, but cannot even educate her own teen daughter.
Not a woman who thinks the GOP has anything to offer besides more war, more maimed/killed U.S. soldiers, more oil dependency, and hate.

Amanda? Amanda Marcotte? Is that you? Jumping Jeebus, how did you get in here?
#424

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

Rusty

The woman was a secessionist for God’s sake. That is, quite literally, the opposite of patriotism!

(makes Sign of Cross)

Rusty, don’t use God’s name like that.

Secondly, whatever her views on succession are, they seem to pale to what is going on in Vermont, and somehow I think you’d give a free pass to your liberal friends there, or maybe deep down you want succession so Islam, Russia and China can eradicate democracy (and liberalism) for good.
#425

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:36 pm, HappyGene said:

Charming, now CBS (link on Drudge reads “LEGAL ACTION THREAT AGAINST NATIONAL ENQURIER OVER ‘PALIN AFFAIR’ STORY…”). Remember the 11th commandment.
#426

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm, theporch said:

Slick Obama waited 3 days before telling his kook friends to back off. Nice timing wouldn’t you say? Quite telling!
#427

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm, e.koenig said:

you know you are feared when you are tagged with ultra conservative by the national enquirer.

did anyone see on FNC Megan Kelly’s interview with the sorry excuse for a human being US magazines senior editor?

pathetic is the only word that comes to mind that i can type here and not make other MM readers cringe.
#428

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm, HappyGene said:

I feel old I think I remember when I went to Drudge to find the nutty stuff the MSN wasn’t carrying. Now I go to Drudge to see the nutty stuff the MSN is carrying. You know Bork ~~was~~ is no slouch, did we learn anything?
#429

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm, redpeach said:

cannot even educate her own teen daughter.

you’re only 24? you’d NEVER guess.

when you have a teen daughter that you “educate” and she makes NO MISTAKES in her life whatsoever, please do come back and tell us how you did it. please? also, you might want to have some facts to back up this kind of claim, since no where is there any indication whatsoever that sarah palin didn’t educate her daughter about sex. people who are educated about sex still get pregnant, moron. this is why your ilk love abortion so much, you can be educated but you don’t necessarily have to be responsible!!!

I think she is toasted.

i think you are wasted.
#430

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm, RealImmigrantChick said:

Drudge reports that Tuesday night’s RNC convention was watched by as many people as the night Hillary was at the Dem convention with her speech. I bet more people will watch tonight when Governor Palin speaks. As a young woman myself, maybe not as young as Edelweiss but I have been told I look even younger than 24, I am excited by a strong woman like Governor Palin. I am also excited by a pro-life woman. I used to be pro-ABORTION, and frankly it is not a choice by any means. Now, after studying the facts, and after having gone to law school and learning how horrid the Roe v. Wade decision was (horrid enough for even Ginsberg to acknowledge so) I know abortion is murder. It is not about YOUR body edelweiss, it is about the baby’s body. Any mother to be or even a curious person can go to a pregnancy web site like pregnancy.org and see the baby develop. By the time a owman actually knows she is pregnant, the baby already has a heart, eyes, little arms and legs start to form and there is a hart beat. Libs made it illegal to destroy a bold eagles’ egg, with a fine of $10K, but it is legal to kill an human baby, way more than just an animal egg. Now that exemplifies exactly how sick liberals are, and I am confident to say that any woman who has had a child and who has seen the development of a baby who is still pro-abortion is simply, sick and twisted.
#431

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:05 pm, RealImmigrantChick said:

CORRECTION: Almost as many people watched Tuesday’s RNC convention as watched Hill’s speech night. Pretty good for what was the first night really of our convention.
#432

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:06 pm, DagneyT said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:55 pm, atheling said:

Dagney:

Idle Vice is a Euro.

‘Nuff said.

No wonder!
#433

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm, California Red said:

Anyone heard the Noonan Murphy open mike dialog on Palin. Not too flattering and the left is running with it as proof that the GOP is in shambles.
#434

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:18 pm, T-Bone said:

From the Us article

Though hailed by many family-values supporters for standing by her daughter during her difficult time, Barbara Belknap, former president of the National Organization of Women’s Juneau chapter, is less glowing: “Here’s a textbook case of how abstinence - only doesn’t work in practice, even if your mom’s the governor.”

Another crazy example of the unhinged lefts logic.

Another textbook case of Barbara Belknaps total ignorance. And people follow this woman? In order to practice abstinence, you have to abstain. Idiot.
#435

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:18 pm, dj said:

There are now excerpts from SP’s speech on Drudge. Read them, you won’t be sorry! Fan-freakin-tastic
#436

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:25 pm, chapoutier said:

Why is it that both of Bidens sons are indicted right now, and there is not a peep out of the left leaning morons that you so love?

Maybe because they have not been indicted? Do you even know what “indict” means? One is being sued (along with Biden’s brother, not another son) by a former business partner. That is entirely different than having a criminal action being brought. The other is off to Iraq to protect your right to post your incredibly useful musings.

Fact checking is your friend.
#437

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:26 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

dj,

She is going mop up the floor with Obama.
#438

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm, tyromac said:

Power Line has Palin speech excerpts up. Some great lines in just those few paragraphs. Can’t wait!
#439

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm, redpeach said:

On September 2nd, 2008 at 11:57 pm, Rusty said:

But if you think the Palin pick is going well, you’re deluding yourself. It’s playing OK to the base. Everyone else, including the indies Maverick McCain needs, are horrified.

i love how the libs on this board make broad, overreaching, indefensible statements like the “everyone” comment above…”everyone” rusty? every single one? do you know them all? has someone polled “everyone”?…(or to grab just another from this board “cannot even educate her own daughter”) and then one tells us how little most conservatives on this board care for facts:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am, nyk said: I’ve learned since first visiting here from the posts and comments on this site is that most of you care little for facts or issues, and that there is no point you consider too low.

well then, to be clear, “most of” us do consider killing the unborn or letting helpless newborns go without medical attention “too low.”
#440

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:33 pm, dj said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:26 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:
dj,

She is going mop up the floor with Obama.

I know, and I cannot wait! She will simply prove why they are all running around with poopy pants right now.
#441

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm, tyromac said:

Was Barbara Belknap in the bedroom with those two teenagers? Can she say they didn’t use birth control? It isn’t like it works all the time (as opposed to abstinence that works every time it is tried). Maybe we should be arguing that for all their education and free handouts, birth control failed miserably in this case and we should be spending more money on abstinence education.
#442

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm, St. Louis Blue said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:22 pm, bear1909 said:

(A rep on a blog? LMAO What is that?!!! And why would someone “need” one.)

That.is.the.best.post.ever. You get it. You really, really get it.

Sites like these are gymnasia–great places to spar, work on your speed, your technique, maybe blow off some steam. MIT, they ain’t.
#443

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm, nyk said:

Do you even know what “indict” means?

Do you even know who you’re talking to? Don’t be silly. Of course he doesn’t!
#444

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:57 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

edelweiss said:

But not a woman like Sarah Palin, who thinks decisions about MY OWN BODY should be made by hateful old men or other Christian wingnuts.

What makes you think you’re body and life are your own. Try not paying taxes for a year. Better yet, have about 2 kids and decide how much of your time is your own. No, you sound like you want to party and wear high heals.

Not a woman who thinks the GOP has anything to offer besides more war, more maimed/killed U.S. soldiers, more oil dependency, and hate.

War is over, we won. I guess you don’t check the headlines out much. We’re handing big big chunks of Iraq back to the Iraqis!

McCain still doesn’t get it that our support for Hillary was not about sex and anatomy. It was about values. Sarah Palin does not represent our dreams.

Whew! I’ll let that one ride.

Palin was a pathetic choice and she is a disgrace to this country, she must be dumped. I think she is toasted.

This is the apogee of your diatribe? Push it a little more, there’s more there; dig a little deeper. Use the force Luke.
#445

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 pm, Ordinary Coloradan said:

Anyone heard the Noonan Murphy open mike dialog on Palin. Not too flattering and the left is running with it as proof that the GOP is in shambles.

More like the Rockefeller’s Country Club Repubst who have ruined the GOP are scared to death us Sam’s Club Repubs like Sarah Palin are going to push them out of their positions of unearned and undeserved power.

Its the Establishment elite Wilsonians fighting against against us conservative Andrew Jackson types. They want to kill her political career in the cradle before it grows and kills theirs.

The GOP has its fair share of Urban Hipster Doofus types, and that includes tons of talking heads who look down their noses at rural and small-town values and the people that honestly live them.

Noonan (et al) are scared witless that Palin will get in and become Pres (in 4 years?), all of their Beltway/Manhattan insider cred and favors and country-club pedigree will amount to JACK when it comes to access or influence in what will become a Palin/Jindal reform-driven, principles based, truly conservative GOP.

Its desperation, and a last grab at power by people who believe they are our masters and know better than us “commoners”

Its present on both sides - the left’s elitism is obvious, but National Review is also losing its mind in places where members are becoming afraid that their “Manhattan Elite” status will become relatively worthless if us “commoners” get in there and push the blue bloods of both parties out of the way.

As has been said, many of them want to keep control of a losing GOP rather than lose control of a winning GOP..

Now’s the time to see who the REAL conservatives are. Kathryn Lopez? Yes. Most of the others? No. They are more interested in retaining power than electing a true reformer and conservative. And that includes most talking heads.

Michelle, do you see it this way?

It certainly looks that way from out here in flyover land, where common sense, small town values, and middle class lifestyle is the norm.
#446

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:06 pm, sandyb said:

Sarah Palin: David
MSM/Obamazombies: Goliath
Cue the “Rocky” music.
#447

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm, chapoutier said:

It certainly looks that way from out here in flyover land, where common sense, small town values, and middle class lifestyle is the norm.

And that’s why Tweak’s coffee is the only one for me.
#448

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:17 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

Ordinary Coloradan said:

Wow, you’re right this is the chrysalis of a “Jacksonian” GOP. Thanks for the post.
#449

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:18 pm, FilmLadd said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm, nyk said:

Do you even know what “indict” means?

Do you even know who you’re talking to? Don’t be silly. Of course he doesn’t!

I am still waiting for a five-sentence-or-less description of conservatism from a conservative’s point of view, gleaned from NYK’s explorations into the rube-filled world of MM land.

Or am I asking something that is simply too painful for the hive-mind to produce - like asking a vampire to build a cross, cook a bowl of garlic soup, or clean a mirror?
#450

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:25 pm, RockyR said:

Sally Quinn was just on O’Reilly and summed up these attacks on Palin quite succinctly:

“McCain should have indicated months ago that she was one of the names being considered, that way the MEDIA could have vetted her… as well as the McCain campaign”.

McCain didn’t consult the media for his choice, and that has them PISSED off. Afterall, THEY are the MOST POWERFUL force in America.

@$$h0135.
#451

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm, RockyR said:

I am still waiting for a five-sentence-or-less description of conservatism from a conservative’s point of view, gleaned from NYK’s explorations into the rube-filled world of MM land.

You can’t sum conservatism up in five sentences or less. It’s too sophisticated a world view. It requires a conversation over a cold beer.
#452

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm, RealImmigrantChick said:

I am upset that O”Reilly called Governor Sarah MRs. Palin. As I recall, he usually calls BO Senator. Others also have done similar things, calling her Sarah, or Sarah Palin, and not GOVERNOR. Sexist, or just innocent slips.
#453

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm, T-Bone said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am, nyk said:
NYK, you obviously have not read this site.
No, actually, I’ve read it plenty, hence my take on conservatives. I came here wanting to learn more about how conservatives think, hoping to hear something new (I read the site for about a year before ever posting). What I’ve learned since first visiting here from the posts and comments on this site is that most of you care little for facts or issues, and that there is no point you consider too low.

Oh — until it’s one of your own.

You are not fooling any of the conservative posters on this site. You and your ilk are so immersed in the Democrat mindthink that you can no longer think clearly. USING a 17 year old girl to make political points is just sick. It doesn’t matter if others do it.

For your side, the end justifies the means. At ALL costs. You will never be able to admit it because then you will have to seriously rethink your life positions. That may be difficult for you to cope with so you project that onto others such as commentators on this site. I don’t believe you came here to learn something about conservatives. You came here to learn
something so you could project your liberal views on us and try to sway us to your position.

I do not believe you are open minded or willing to explore ways to reach common ground. Your goal appears to be to get your way at all costs. You have convinced yourself you have the right positions on all the issues. Others here are like that too. You may have fooled yourself in your own mind but rational readers see right through you.

It would be nice to have rational discussions about major issues that we as “Americans” have. I would guess that this site offers more chance for that than Huffpo or Daily KOS. But that would violate your ideas about things so the projection continues.

I think that is sad but you probably do not. You just want to win and have your positions superior to all others.That is more important than the life of a 17 year old girl thrown to the wolves for partisan political gain.

IMO
#454

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:45 pm, mgraves said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm, edelweiss said:

As a young woman (24), I would love to see a woman elected President or VP.
I’d have loved to see Hillary on Obama’s ticket.
But not a woman like Sarah Palin, who thinks decisions about MY OWN BODY should be made by hateful old men or other Christian wingnuts.
We don’t want a woman who is a creationist, thinks science is a myth, preaches abstinence, but cannot even educate her own teen daughter.

So you are worried about hateful old men or Crhistian wingnuts but are you willing to let the government make decisions about your health care? Essentially by casting your vote for Barack Obama you are handing over many of your freedoms that you take for granted to the government.

Speaking of hate, I find your statement about Palin not being able to educate her own daughter rather hateful. I am sure that when you have kids one day they will be sooooooo perfect they will never disobey or break your rules. Just as I am sure you were a little dutiful angel and abided by ever ground rule your parents laid (eye roll). And do you really want hateful old Democratic men teaching your children about sex?
#455

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:46 pm, FilmLadd said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm, RockyR said:

You can’t sum conservatism up in five sentences or less. It’s too sophisticated a world view. It requires a conversation over a cold beer.

Well, yes, to be precise, it can be summed up, just not completely described.

If someone has truly been spending an entire year trying to “better understand conservatism”, as opposed to being remunerated by the hive-mind to propagandize against it, then one should at least be able to summarize its basic tenets earnestly, without bile.

I can easily sum up hive-mindism from its own point of view. Why can’t the hive-mind sum up conservatism from a conservative point of view?
#456

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm, Ordinary Coloradan said:

Filmladd, you ignoramus, go luck up Russel Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles.

That’s a good starting point. There’s a lot more to it than that, but its a solid start.

I’ll give you a few of them:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world.
#457

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm, Ordinary Coloradan said:

argh hit enter before I proofed that.

The ignoramus is not who I thought it was upon second reading, and was editing - ‘luck’ should be ‘look’, etc.

And the Kirk quotes needed to be trimmed down (I didn’t finish condensing 9 at all)

Apologies for the confusion and error.
#458

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm, Roland said:

You can’t sum conservatism up in five sentences or less.

Today’s conservatism? Easy. It doesn’t take five sentences.

1) Anyone fighting for the preservation of our Constitutional Republic.

Period.

How does that relate to abortion, for instance? Roe is an obvious Constitutional abomination. How does it relate to affirmative action? Government racism however ‘well intentioned’ is plainly unconstitutional. How does it relate to the WOT? Islam and the Left are aggressively working to undermine our freedom of speech and religion, including our right to argue to depose dictators nurturing the growth of terrorist Muslim organizations intent on mass murdering us. Mustn’t be a ‘warmonger.’ That’s ‘hate speech.’

The irony is that the people who are called ‘conservative’ today are those of us defending liberal democracy. The ‘liberals’ are really socialists trying to destroy it.
#459

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm, FilmLadd said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm, Ordinary Coloradan said:

Apologies for the confusion and error.

Wow, hey, not a problem! I was really confused at first, as I was asking someone who was a liberal (claiming to have been studying us rube conservatives) to define conservatism on her own.

Now you gave it a (very good) cheat sheet! But it will still have to condense those thoughts down even further to five sentences or less.

Ah, nevermind, the hive-mind is too frightened to attempt the exercise.
#460

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm, T-Bone said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm, Ordinary Coloradan said:
Filmladd, you ignoramus, go look up Russel Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles.

That’s a good starting point. There’s a lot more to it than that, but its a solid start.

I’ll give you a few of them:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

Awesome post.
#461

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm, FilmLadd said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm, T-Bone said:

Awesome post.

Yes, except for the friendly fire. Ouch!
#462

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:11 pm, T-Bone said:

Maybe you could add an 11th item.

Then it would be “FilmLadd at 11″
#463

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm, Rob said:

Anyone that reads TIME or NEWSWEEK or US or PEOPLE, etc. or any of those stupid tabloids that talk about movie stars and other fools are just MORONS.
#464

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm, Politicalguano said:

First Palin next our families.
They have started a war and they want our blood. We know their names and we know many of their faces. They do not know who we - to them we are bugs to be crushed. They started this war, they think we won’t fight back, that we won’t defend our families. Every year they become more vicious and destructive - it is only a matter of time before they begin to kill or maim us, or cause such pain to our families that a child or loved one commits suicide. They hate us and clearly say so.
#465

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm, Erik W said:

“Us” seems to have closed its comments for the article.
#466

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm, conservative82 said:

This helps sum up Us Magazine, on their main webpage on the right hand side they list a section of “news from trusted Us Weekly partners” and under that section under Fox News is none other than Huffington Post. Did I miss when they became a trusted news site?
#467

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm, Dimsdale said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm, RealImmigrantChick said: #433

Libs made it illegal to destroy a bold eagles’ egg, with a fine of $10K, but it is legal to kill an human baby, way more than just an animal egg.

That is a SUPERB point! Relevant and on the mark! Kudos!
#468

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm, conservative82 said:

TMZ has a story titled “Palin Don’t Preach: Bristol and Levi Unite” including a tag line

If only Bristol and Levi stopped at holding hands, they wouldn’t be in their latest predicament.
#469

On September 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm, RockyR said:

I can easily sum up hive-mindism from its own point of view. Why can’t the hive-mind sum up conservatism from a conservative point of view?

Hrm… I’ll reinforce your point. What is a “hive-mind?” I hope you spend SOME time studying something useful.

I’ll sum up my view of my own conservatism: Maximization of freedom by protecting individual liberties; enabling free market capitalistic economies; minimizing government intrusion; batting the influence of gangs, thugs, criminals, and the government (all birds of the same feather); supporting constructive cultures before barbarism, eliminating race-base, identity politics; protecting life; protecting America; combatting socialism; fighting group-think; supporting REAL education that REALLY moves society forward (through innovation, invention, and enterprise); putting America and Americans FIRST, ALWAYS; and expecting more of my fellow man (or woman) than he believes he has within himself.

Does that help you in your social studies exercise?
#470

On September 3rd, 2008 at 11:53 pm, e.koenig said:

well after crusing the libtard blogs….and coming across comments like

It will play well with the scum. And it will be important to combat it, viscerally, viciously, brutally

and the same un-vetted arguments……i’m pretty sure that terror replaced fear.
#471

On September 4th, 2008 at 9:53 am, RabbidSquirrel said:

What happened to the days when we could post 40 entries and then we were on to the next blog topic? (Oh wait, that was just last week) Now all of you have suddenly become engaged and educated and I have to think about my answers!

Welcome back EVERYONE!!!!!
#472

On September 4th, 2008 at 10:16 am, fulldroolcup said:

I’m surprised so many wasted time with edelweiss. She’s not a citizen. she’s a euroweenie. She can’t vote here, she lives in a country that is completely morally tainted by its prissy and self-serving neutrality.

(Kinda like Obama: if you avoid making tough decisions it’s easy to deride those to do make them.)

Edelweiss doesn’t know our culture, our values, our politics. She’s a lot like that fool in the movie “Airplane”, who flits in and out offering utterly inane advice.