Liberal men in a panic; Update: liberal women spinning, too
Scroll for updates…
Harry Reid is attacking Palin as “shrill.” Look under “gall” in the dictionary for a photo of Harry Reid.
The shrilliest of the shrill Democrat shills is calling Gov. Palin “shrill?”
They just can’t keep a lid on the chauvinism, can they?
Speaking of which, reader Mike G. e-mails after watching the flustered MSNBC jerks:
I decided to suffer through a few minutes of the gasbags on NBC and just as I tune in I hear Olbermann saying oh so sternly, “I have to wonder though, if the sarcasm was the proper tone.”
Right. Because only liberal men who are attacking conservatives are allowed to employ sarcasm in the service of Hope and Change.
***
Here you go:
Sen. Harry Reid isn’t about to back away from a fight, even with the VP pick. This response comes from Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley after Sarah Palin attacked the senator in her speech tonight:
“Anyone who knows Senator Reid knows he never backs down when he’s fighting for what’s right and that he always stands up to John McCain when he is wrong,” Reid’s spokesman said.
“Shrill and sarcastic political attacks may fire up the Republican base, but they don’t change the fact that a McCain-Palin administration would mean four more years of failed bush-Cheney policies.”
***
Update 12:55am Eastern. Oh, triple-crikey. Democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (a mother of three herself who was profiled sympathetically in the old WaPo piece I blogged out a few days ago) is on CNN seriously arguing that nooooooo one on the Left has argued that Palin can’t juggle motherhood and the vice presidency at the same time.
Rep. Wasserman Schultz, meet Sally Quinn and Ed Schultz, etc., etc., etc.
See also: Clinton aides: Palin treatment sexist
Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen, who has written best-selling books on gender differences, said she agrees with complaints that Palin skeptics — including prominent voices in the news media — have crossed a line by speculating about whether the Alaska governor is neglecting her family in pursuit of national office.
“What we’re dealing with now, there’s nothing subtle about it,” said Tannen. “We’re dealing with the assumption that child-rearing is the job of women and not men. Is it sexist? Yes.”
***
Update: Kyle-Anne Shiver…Palin rules, libs drool.
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
- The Palin Speech Updated With Reactions | Right Voices
- Couple of things on Gov. Palin’s brilliance : Stop The ACLU
- Riehl World View
- The Saloon dot net
- Sarah Palin: Uppity Woman Who Needs To Learn Her Place « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier
- Blog @ MoreWhat.com
- Palin a news Powerhouse | The Anchoress
- Michelle Malkin » Explaining the “community organizer” joke to the outraged Left
- Pajamas Media » Barack’s Helpful Hints for Sarah
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Sarah Palin
protein wisdom
» A Nannystatist Emily Litella moment [Darleen Click]
Ed Driscoll
» The University ArchipelagoNewsBusters.org
» The War on Terror Made Him Do ItEd Driscoll
» First We Take Chicago, Then We Take BerlinNewsBusters.org
» Matthews on Ft. Hood Suspect Warning Signal: 'That's Not a Crime to Call al Qaeda, Is It?'Pundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyoneTigerHawk
» Abortion and health care "reform"Weekly Standard
» The Federal Bureau of Non-Investigation
Its all about fear. They see in Palin what a Public Television commentator called a new Republican folk hero. In less than a week McCain in choosing Palin has shattered their world, and they still don’t know what to do.
conservativerus, Thats why I deleted the talking points. Everyone knows them and they do nothing to move the debate forward. There was only one sentence that seemed to be bemuseds own thoughts.
Really Gloria. Here’s what Clinton supporters are really thinking about Palin. These are Democrats loving Palin, especially when she trashes Obama.
PUMA’s
Hillary Supporters for McCain
More Hillary Supporters for McCain
I thought I was reading commennts from conservative websites for a minute. But these are DEMOCRATS!!! I think Obama better start worrying about the Hillary voters. Imagine all those that don’t blog or comment on blogs.
First rule of the left, never give credit to our troops. Don’t credit American troops for the success of the Surge because, after all, they’re just dumb hick losers who didn’t study hard enough and got “stuck in Iraq.” How could they possibly make a difference?
sonfdy – I quoted it all because every once in a while, a lib talking point is in fact truth. I was just questioning how Bemused knew any of it to be fact.
On September 4th, 2008 at 9:49 am, BemusedLib said:
Note that hive-mind does not mention what the goal was that the strategic blunder was committed for. Hive-mind does not want you to think about this.
It acts as if stability is important to it, that U.S. military readiness is important to it, that our enemies being emboldened is not desired by it, that 25,000 Americans dead or wounded is undesirable to it, or that a corrupt autocracy in Iraq is a bad thing to its ultimate goals.
Hive mind, we know you delight in these things. This is why your drones so easily rattle off these half-thoughts.
Ah, but hive mind will not respond. Nevertheless I will still address it, as naming it and speaking to it directly causes it great damage.
Prattle on, hive mind, prattle on!
yeah but we know the diference, usualy.
I’m with Senator Obama.
“Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.
“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz added. “That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html
On September 4th, 2008 at 10:41 am, JT said:
I read that piece. It’s a strong attack, but the kind of issue-based attack you claim to be interested in — and a defense of Governor Palin as mom/Guv. I understand your disagreeing with the conclusion, but I don’t understand the outrage.
Do You know hat he means by network neutrality?
How does he plan to increase minority ownership?
What a wonderful compliment from Ms. Steinem! Mrs. Palin should thank her for the tribute. It’s like Hillary or Nancy saying “She’s Margaret Thatcher, only younger.”
Hannity has to shut-up. Olbermann gets a government grant.
Great. Bigger government, forced neutrality (mediated by whom?), and more affirmative action. Wow, great stand against the fairness doctrine, Obama.
The CPB makes over a billion dollars a year from licensing Sesame Street merchandise alone. Why are we even still subsidizing them?
On September 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am, sonofdy said:
“That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”
Do You know hat he means by network neutrality?
Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet [emphasis added]. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet. Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane.
One hopes by making it impopssible for Clear Channel to buy more media outlets and rserving spectrum for locally owned stations, though that is my thought, not his.
I hate to point this out, but you completely misunderstand the term as it is used here. It has nothing to do with broadcast networks. It means that Internet providers can’t offer two levels of serveice, one to large companies who can pay more and one to you and me and all the small right-wing bloggers out there struggling to pay for bandwidth.
Your paranoia is showing.
It’s institutionalized liberalism. Once you allow them in your pocket, you can never get them out.
SHRILL??? Last night ,watching, wife and I both commented on the even low tone of her SPEECH… She could have been sitting across from us at the dining room table, and not come across as loud or shrill, unlike another WOMAN CANDIDATE we all know and love, but shall remain nameless…
On September 4th, 2008 at 10:52 am, BemusedLib said:
Yes, hive-mind wants you to believe that it is capable of controlling everything. Capping media ownership. Internet neutrality. Minority ownership.
Hive-mind does not want you to think what the potential pitfalls are, namely that it will increase its power, ostensibly to accomplish high-minded goals, but in reality to crush individual freedom.
Note that it is also attempting to deflect criticism of these pretend goals by declaring its opponents ignorant, or paranoid.
I wonder if there is anything human left within the body that hive-mind has infected in order to do its propagandistic bidding on MM’s website.
Yet, you never ask the why question. Why is any of this regulatory, bureaucratic crap necessary? The internet is doing just fine without government intervention. Increasing minority ownership? WTF? Newsflash: minority entrepeneurs don’t need your or Obie’s “help”. One need not look any further than the last plan to help minority business owners… that failed miserably because there were more minority business owners prior to the implementation of “help” than after.
I’m simply disgusted. But MM’s headline tag: “liberal men in a panic” could not be more apt. Even if she had hired Bush’s speechwriter herself.
Watching the media coverage, and listening to liberals attack the Palins for the very things the liberals would be otherwise be celebrating Democrats for, is an absolutely other-worldly experience.
The gall, hypocrisy, and intellectual dishonesty exhibited by the liberal media members is positively sickening.
But, now that they have pulled off their masks, everyone can see them for what they are: petty partisan pukes.
Hey FEMINISTS: I thought Sarah exemplifies everything you harpies have been demanding everyone else think be cool: an independent, successful woman with a job, family, and confidence.
Make up your damned minds!
On September 4th, 2008 at 10:52 am, BemusedLib said:
Note also that hive-mind will occasionally attempt to appear as if it is one of us, to engender sympathy, and to deflect us from its true goal of collectivist power.
It does not want us to consider whether individual freedom will flourish under its system, only that it claims to be “in the same boat” as us.
Beware of infected ones claiming kinship, they are the most dangerous form of zombie.
Release BemusedLib, hive-mind! Release!
It is the kind of reaction that empty suits have after a person of substance walks up, looks them straight in the eye, and the polticially punches them right in the face.
I am sure they are looking like a moose in the headlights.
Your last comment is a bit callous in my opinion.
Net neutrality is a bit more complicated than you describe here, but the general notion is correct.
However, there is a concern, for some of us anyway, that any government regulation like this sounds eerily similar to the poorly named (IMHO) “Fairness Doctrine”. Talks in congress over net neutrality sometimes seem like another opportunity for the Fairness Doctrine to be reintroduced.
Mr. J’s understanding of net neutrality may have been mistaken, but his concern over government control was not so far off base.
Just pointing out what might be considered common interest.
On the larger issue, while I don’t embrace collectivism in all things, I do trust governments — which can be changed — over monopolistic corporations, which can’t, in some areas, such as allocating limited, publicly-owned broadcast spectrum or setting the basic technical groundrules for large networks shared by many users.
On September 4th, 2008 at 11:41 am, Salt said:
On September 4th, 2008 at 11:10 am, BemusedLib said:
Point taken. And, it is a complex issue, and I have no objection to people who are opposed to the fairness doctrine expressing concern. I just get a tetchy when the criticism is based on false assumptions.
Bemused,
As a software developer for over 12 years, trust me when I say network neutrality is a load of complete crap. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must be allowed to offer businesses better service than they do for homes. Why? They need a faster service and they need a more reliable service than a typical home user does. That’s just common sense. As for giving more bandwith to some sites than to others, that again makes perfect sense. Sites that have lots of hits on them per day need to get better bandwith than those that get very few. If you try to make everything equal, then you’ll just slow down the sites with the high hits and waste bandwith on the others. The whole idea is just stupid. Go over to technical sites like slashdot.org and read up on from people who know.
You should have mentioned QoS….
Kinda implied it. QoS is what ISPs need to deliver especially to buisnesses.
For those not in the know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service
Business vs home
or
Web Ex’ing into my customers systems vs my kids watching YouTube and their stupid friends videos
Thanks. And great example too.
Its a gift….
But I think we killed this thread. I seriously need to get out of the valley and back into the city. lol
Maybe I will head up to the Castro and see what the guys there think about Mrs Palin.
Wonder what happened to Bemused? Maybe reading up on the downside to Network Neutrality? One can only hope.
On September 4th, 2008 at 12:03 pm, BemusedLib said:
Hive-mind neglects to mention that governments are typically changed through extreme measures – revolution or war. This is because governments are the ultimate centers of power on the planet.
The hive-mind trusts governments of any sort over free individuals: China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Talibanic Afghanistan, even Hussein’s Iraq. This is to be expected, as it thrives best when free speech and liberty are crushed under its jackboots.
Hive-mind neglects to mention that corporations are composed of free individuals doing business with customers who freely choose to do business with them.
Monopolistic corporations included. There were horse-carriage monopolies and railway monopolies. Free men and women ceased to use their services and the monopolies died.
Hive-mind does not want us to realize that governments are the true monopolies.
Hive-mind dislikes capitalism, the ultimate form of freedom.
Hive-mind has common interest only with the enemies of freedom.
Release BemusedLib, hive-mind! Release!
If this were a Palin for POTUS campaign, I’d look for a 20-point bump – but if she were the prospective nominee all along, she’d be soaring far above the Agitator in the numbers to begin with.
Man I am confused. The platforms of the DNC in the past was equality for women, women if office, politcal correctness, etc. I would have thought they would be praising her. Now that Palin is on the scence all that fairness has gone out the window. Who would have thought the GOP would have a women first in the WhiteHouse. I would have bet long ago the DNC would lay claim to that prize. Who and what are the DNC nowadays?
Ol’ Harry needs to look up the definition of ’shrill’ in the dictionary. Shrill to me is the robot wife in the Star Trek episode yelling “Harcort Fenton Mudd” in that high-pitched, nasily voice. Ugh!
Sarah Palin was a warm, strong speaker and just wonderful.