Sunday, September 7, 2008

The smearing of Sarah Palin


The Democrats and their media allies are doing their best to smear Sarah Palin.
By accident or design, Bill Ralston made a few errors in his column today, as noted earlier.
Over in Australia, Tim Blair notes how the Democrats need to smear Palin.
Fairfax Obama supporter and executive Bruce Wolpe wrote of the gameplan:
An Obama ally assessed what Palin means: “This is a turnout election and the right will now turn out. I still think this is Obama’s race to lose but he could lose it unless our folks turn up the energy …
“Obama needs to help identify her over the weekend as a book burning fundamentalist with a secessionist husband, a wacky minister of her own and an appetite for pork barrelling. They need to marginalise her …”
Indeed, some true believers are already pushing out their smears, with the leftist Daily Kos having to remove some of the more extreme examples.
One regular comment is that Sarah Palin is a mean, sexist and racist who hates Eskimos!
How true can these rumours be?, when at least on the Eskimo score, she married one!
Oh well, I guess this blog on Palin Rumours will be in for a busy time then.
It was at 66 when this post was posted.

10 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

Smears? Stuff like her being a stealth Muslim extremist with a false birth certificate, having an insane spouse, no experience for the job, deluded supporters who treat her like a Messiah etc? Oh yeah, publishing stuff like that would be so utterly contemptible...

Observer said...

Their problem is that she's a babe, photogenically speaking. Obama was the 'pretty' one until she came along, and we all know how susceptible Americans are to a pretty face, just look at box-office receipts!

chicken little said...

OT - Fairfax - In your links to other blogs you have Thorndon Bubble in the right blogs. The link goes to that paragon of rightness No8 wire.

Don't know if you realise that?

No8 is of course another taxpayer paid Labour proxy.

Maybe a move might be in order.

Anonymous said...

The difference PM is that the main stream media repeats the Palin smears. I am yet to see any Obama rumours printed in the MSM.

Psycho Milt said...

Chicken Little: my mistake, not FFM's - will rectify now.

Anonymous: do you have examples of the mainstream media running "smears" against Palin? NB: "smears" here refers to stuff like the Obama ones above - either not based in fact, or demonstrably a matter of opinion. Any MSM stories along those lines? I can't say I've seen any (not that I've been looking for them.)

Anonymous said...

Stuff like her being a stealth Muslim extremist with a false birth certificate, having an insane spouse, no experience for the job, deluded supporters who treat her like a Messiah etc?

Unfortunately for you, these facts about Obama and Hillary --- are Objectively True.

Ackers said...

objectively true rather than subjective bullshit?

As PM suggests deluded supporters. Can we change that to insane?

WAKE UP said...

The "great" Bill Ralston, scared out of his wits that McCain/Palin are going to win, actually said in his column: "...the American electorate invariably seems to opt for the worst possible choice".

WHAT!?

Let's see...Washington, Lincoln, Truman, Kennedy - and that's without even thinking.

That Ralston actually gets paid to write such fatuous drivel is all you need to know about the Herald.

Psycho Milt said...

Unfortunately for you, these facts about Obama and Hillary --- are Objectively True.

Wow! I missed this foolishness earlier.

Now, I know some of the people who comment on blogs struggle a bit with philosophy and logic, so I'll offer a little assistance:
1. Opinions don't turn into facts just because you declare them to be objectively true.
2. Putting "Objectively True" in capitals actually doesn't make it any truthier - see item 1.

Ackers said...

Unfortunately I think re-electing Bush proves Ralston right.