Friday, November 20, 2009

Palin Derangement Disorder

Forget Swine Flu, an epidemic of Palin Derangement Disorder is sweeping the commentariat community. My print column is up.

UPDATE: My friend Donna checks in to ask:
Is there a vaccine available? According to the "experts", we seniors over 65 are not supposed to be as susceptible to H1N1. Certainly hope this applies to PDD. I have had my flu shot, my pneumonia shot,my booster diptheria shot, and even a shingles shot! I would definitely take a vaccine for PDD. I also recommend that Letterman get in line.

16 Comments:

Blogger A Nonymous said...

Gil-
Didn't the eminent Krauthammer suffer from CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome) from which he still has occasional bouts?
You and he both seem to have a bad case of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

You wrote:
"I say “purports” because the Associated Press has allegedly found a number of errors and/or misstatements that call into question the honesty of the author and her ghostwriter. They call it “fact-checking.”:

There is no "allegedly". If YOU want to discount the work of real reporters, you should find an actual reporter at the Delco Times to teach you how to analyze the AP's fact checking story point by point.

November 20, 2009 at 12:43 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

I said "purports" because serious points have been raised concerning the fairness of the AP report.

Such as these at Powerline

"The AP starts with this one:

PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels.

THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard) for a five-hour women's leadership conference in New York in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000.

This is frankly pathetic. Palin says she didn't "often" stay at high-end hotels, and the AP counters by saying she did, once. Yes, that's why she said "not often" rather than "never." What is indisputable is that Palin sold the Governor's private jet and flew commercial, thereby saving the taxpayers a large amount of money and qualifying her as a frugal traveler.

The rest are about as lame. Here is another:

PALIN: Rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes to Obama. She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in business, "you'll have to be brave enough to fail."

THE FACTS: Palin is blurring Obama's stimulus plan--a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts--and the federal bailout that President George W. Bush signed.

Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said "taxpayers cannot be looked to" to bail out Wall Street.

The next month, she praised McCain for being "instrumental in bringing folks together" to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said "it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in."

The AP doesn't quote Palin, so it's hard to say whether she "blurs" the bailouts or not. But by the AP's own account, Palin has consistently opposed bailouts, except that during the Presidential campaign, she loyally supported McCain's position on the initial TARP program. That's what a Vice-Presidential candidate is supposed to do, and this is not a "fact-check."

This one, I simply don't believe:

PALIN: Welcomes last year's Supreme Court decision deciding punitive damages for victims of the nation's largest oil spill tragedy, the Exxon Valdez disaster, stating it had taken 20 years to achieve victory. As governor, she says, she'd had the state argue in favor of the victims, and she says the court's ruling went "in favor of the people."

THE FACTS: That response is at odds with her reaction at the time to the ruling, which resolved the case by reducing punitive damages for victims to $500 million from $2.5 billion. Palin said then she was "extremely disappointed" and it was "tragic" so many fishermen and families put their lives on hold waiting for the decision.

Again, the AP doesn't quote Palin but rather asks us to take their word for the fact that Palin "welcomes" the Supreme Court's Exxon Valdez decision in her book as a "ruling [that] went 'in favor of the people.'" I would bet that the AP is mischaracterizing what Palin says in her book. She criticized the Supreme Court's decision at the time, as did most Alaskans, and cited it as a Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed in the Katie Couric interview. I seriously doubt that she contradicts that position in her book, although I wouldn't doubt that she called the verdict against Exxon (which was slashed by the Supreme Court) as a decision "in favor of the people."

It appears to be a tribute to the factual accuracy of Palin's book that eleven hostile AP reporters can't come up with anything better than this."

You can read the whole post here.

A Noniano should find an argument instead of relying on insults in another one of his lame attempts to change the subject.

November 21, 2009 at 10:08 PM 
Blogger jake said...

Well said, Gil.
I think if this were youth baseball, we'd have to invoke the 10-run mercy rule.

November 22, 2009 at 9:22 AM 
Blogger A Nonymous said...

Gil-
Is that the same "women's leadership conference" that her daughter wasn't invited to, so Palin had to refund the state of Alaska?

You "would bet that the AP is mischaracterizing what Palin says in her book."
Gee, if only there was some way for you to get a copy and check for yourself.

There are also contradictions between her account about who wanted her to do the Couric interview and her own emails at the time, which were released by some of the McCain staffers.

Even her time line about her daughter's pregnancy and who knew what and when is riddled with contradictions.

Read the book, then check news accounts and her statements at the time.

The reality is that Palin spouts nonsense. The accuracy of her stories isn't important, because she has nothing useful or relevant to say. Unfortunately, there is a large enough audience for her twisted views to make her book a financial success.

If you want to be in the crowd that believes what she says, that says more about you.

November 22, 2009 at 5:12 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I remember her as someone who held her ground against Biden in their debate, leaving the commentators without much material to get her on until the next left-wing development could be put together. Isn't it amazing that the left complains about talk radio, yet they own TV and Cable News (ALL but one, ALL.) and championed the theory that McCain shouldn't be elected because his running mate doesn't have vast experience, yet we elected a guy with even less experience? No-God bless the TV media, right?

Clearly our resident coward doesn't view things with an unbiased point of view. You donkeys have worked hard to smear her character on anything possible, down to a business trip or two - lets talk about fast Eddie's usual trips up and down the turnpike at double the speed limit so he can be here for "Post Game Live" and any other photo worthy appearances. Let's talk about the Media being shamed and hushed after one reporter said Hillary was being "whored out" in the campaign, yet Palin's kids are under extreme scrutiny by our Media Sources - double standard.

November 23, 2009 at 9:17 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Is this part of Palin derangement disorder?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk

November 23, 2009 at 10:55 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - She did better than expected in her debate with Biden, but all in all, her performance was just mediocre, and don't forget. Not all of the criticism comes from the left. McCain and his aids haven't been very kind to Pali either. When McCain was asked if he would support a Palin run for president, he brushed her off.
And McCain campaigners called portions of her book a lie. Palin loves to play the victim, but the truth is, she's always been her own worse enemy. But hey! I'm all for a Palin run in 2012.

November 23, 2009 at 7:59 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

She did an interview with O'Reily.
I watched it to see if maybe she would do better if she had a conservative interviewer. Again, it seemed to me like her answers were very shallow. Was it just me? O'Reiley had another conservative on to give his thoughts on the interview. He said "Palin proved one thing in this interview. That she's likeable. And that's all"

November 24, 2009 at 6:07 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Biden's a seasoned whiny old man yet he didn't dominate the debate even with all the "Bush this Bush that " he could possibly heave on every issue, since George W Bush was clearly running for a third term. She knew her issues and held her ground in the debate.

Beck and now O'Reilly? You must be glued to Fox News 24/7. Please don't tell me that Greta's polygamist-like blouses are turning you on! Didn't see the interview, because, of course, I lost faith in all forms of cable news. With your agenda, I can't take the summary reasonably. And don't tell me you read about the interview or caught 'soundbytes' like your pal anon-iano does. And if you tell me they're from a blog....

November 24, 2009 at 8:40 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

guess I forgot endorsements:

-Gore endorses Obama over Hillary despite their connection

-Kerry endorses the anointed one over his own 2004 running mate

Endorsements are nothing more than a JOKE. Lets call it what it really is, Bob, PROSTITUTION. Holding out for the best deal come election season - which is exactly what McCain and everyone else is doing with their almighty 2012 endorsements. Should I even attempt to take a 'gotcha' question seriously with an election just under 4 years away at the time?

November 24, 2009 at 8:44 AM 
Blogger jake said...

I've read the AP "fact-check" analysis. It deserves to be on the editorial page -- totally subjective and offering broad opinions that clearly evidence the reorter's bias against Governor Palin.

It's no surprise, with hatchet jobs like this, that the public has lost confidence in the truthfulness of the mainstream media.

November 24, 2009 at 9:34 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - Admit it. You don't watch cable news, because you're to cheap to have cable. You're still using rabbit ears and a UHF loop. Reread my post, Steve. I SAID I watched the interview. I didn't claim to have read the interview or caught sound bites. Again, excuse me for trying to hear both sides of an issue. I heard she was doing an interview with O'Reilly, and out of curiosity I tuned in to see if she had at least boned up on some facts and figures. She hadn't. But I have to give her credit. Simple minded as she might be, she still appeals to the Steves and Scott's of this world.
PALIN in 2012!!!!!!!!!

November 24, 2009 at 10:05 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I didn't claim to have read the interview or caught sound bites. Again, excuse me for trying to hear both sides of an issue. I heard she was doing an interview with O'Reilly, and out of curiosity I tuned in to see if she had at least boned up on some facts and figures. She hadn't. But I have to give her credit. Simple minded as she might be, she still appeals to the Steves and Scott's of this world.
PALIN in 2012!!!!!!!!!

November 24, 2009 10:05 AM


Aww, am I striking a nerve? Or is this stemming from the correctly placed "DB" line a few weeks ago? With the way comcast is 'comcastrating' its customers lately, part of me wishes I had rabbit ears and utilized the Bundy System of viewing television (Kids, hold the antennas!). But I doubt that gets me FX or my Sunday night shows on HBO.

But lets try again, you're doing one of two things - a) Closet Fox News Fan who can't get enough of their right wing bias because you can't go without the mental torture, or b) You're referencing your regular anon-iano line of left wing blogs for their snippets and talking points of the interview. So what are we looking at?

November 24, 2009 at 2:57 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - A nerve? Are you kidding? I don't take any of this personally. Don't believe me? Ask Gil or Scott. Think back a few years. The barbs that I get from you and Jake are nothing compared to the stuff Randal used to throw at me. Bottom line. I enjoy this. I enjoy the debate, I enjoy politics, and I enjoy current events. If I spend more time listening to both sides than you do, that just means I'll be more informed. As for the DB comment, calling someone a DB is just a reflection of the kind of person you are.

November 24, 2009 at 7:14 PM 
Blogger jake said...

Geez, my barbs "are nothing compared to the stuff Randal used to throw at you"?
That's really nasty. You really know how to hurt a guy.

November 26, 2009 at 10:54 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Jake - I'm sorry. Nothing personal.

November 26, 2009 at 8:40 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home