And this week's Angry Liberal Award goes to...

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 11:09am

...Todd Purdum, for his one-sided hit piece on Sarah Palin. Purdum rounded up as many Palin detractors as he could find and flung ink-stained acid in her political face. It was 9,800 words of spittle and venom. Jim Geraghty offers a partial response here.

Several thoughts. One, McCain should not have picked Palin as a running mate. She wasn't ready on the issues, and she wasn't at a stage in her life to handle national politics, not with a recently born Trig and not with a recently pregnant Bristol. Palin needed more seasoning in the governor's office, and if she were serious about the brass ring, she should have spent more time laying the groundwork. Her saying "yes" to McCain is a black mark on her judgment. In hindsight, Bobby Jindal played it much smarter, declining to jump on the Train Wreck Express. [EDIT: However, I think Colin Powell would have been an exceptional choice (had McCain asked and had Powell accepted). A McCain-Powell ticket would have angered conservatives, but it also could have won them an election, especially in comparison to the addled Biden. That would have been a true "maverick" pick. Woulda-coulda-shoulda.]

Two, McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt is a Karl Rove protege, and McCain should not have picked him to run the campaign. Schmidt is a sleazebag, as Bill Kristol well explains, and it is ironic that McCain would pick a guy from the very machine that smeared him and upended his campaign in 2000. Furthermore, Rove--and by extension, Schmidt--was a principal mover during the Bush presidency, and I don't understand why McCain would hire a fella who directly contributed to a failed presidency, especially when McCain was trying to distance himself from the Bush political albatross.

Three, it is incredibly unprofessional for campaign consultants to dis their candidates, and dis Palin they did via anonymous-sourced leaks to Purdum and others. Schmidt mishandled the campaign and he mishandled Palin. He and others scapegoated her in order to divert blame from their botched efforts. But the problem is, in doing so, they did a major disservice to their boss who picked Palin in the first place. And McCain's choice had Schmidt's approval, so he owns it, too. Every murmur that comes from these consultants goes back to McCain and is a smack on him, and he deserves better from these well-compensated "advisors".

Four, one way you can tell it's a hit piece is by what Purdum doesn't say. For example, when he quoted former governor Walter Hickel as saying, "I don’t give a damn what she does," Purdum failed to explain why. The why is because Hickel's hobby horse is a natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, and he's a little particular about dealing with people outside Alaska. Palin's pipeline would go from Prudhoe Bay through Canada to the Lower 48, which was just not acceptable to Hickel. Hickel was (or is?) a member of the Alaska Independence Party, which is a Bad Thing if you're Sarah Palin and if your spouse was a member of that group, but it doesn't merit a mention when you're using that person for ammunition against a person you despise. This is just one example, but when strung together with the many others, the Vanity Fair article is no different than the hit piece that Jan Wenner ordered on McCain three weeks before election day.

Five, I'm sure there is some truth in Purdum's piece, but separating fact from smear just isn't worth it. There is no doubt that McCain regretted his choosing Palin, and Purdum is on solid footing when he quoted McCain accurately in his appearance on Leno:

"We have, I’m happy to say, a lot of choices out there: Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Huntsman, Romney, Charlie Crist—there’s a lot of governors out there who are young and dynamic." McCain went on, "There’s a lot of good people out there, and I’ve left out somebody’s name and I’m going to hear about it."

Instead, most of the polemic is anonymously sourced rehash. Geraghty has a solid point:

The irony is that there’s room in this world for a profile that is critical of Palin, but that preferably didn’t begin with the supposition that she is the root of all evil in the political world.

Bill Clinton also has a solid point. The former president knows a thing or two about blowjobs, and it's apparent to me that Todd Purdum used his poison pen to give Barack a dandy of a hummer during the campaign.

Six, an interesting Purdum quote:

At least one savvy politician—Barack Obama—believed Palin would never have time to get up to speed. He told his aides that it had taken him four months to learn how to be a national candidate, and added, "I don’t care how talented she is, this is really a leap."

And there's your difference in experience between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. Four months. Obama had his 120 days of lessons and primers in preparation for the national stage, and Palin did not. Apparently, this lack of experience by Palin is Really Really Bad, but unmentioned is Obama's similar lack of experience. The time from when Palin was picked to Inauguration Day was just under five months.

Seven, Purdum went into plenty of detail to insinuate that Palin was not cut out for the job of vice president, but the person who holds that office today is a clearcut dumbass. It is in our vital national interests that Barack Obama does not die or become incapacitated in office.

[Update:] Mark Hemingway figures it was Steve Schmidt or Mark Wallace who helped Purdum out with his hit piece. His final paragraph:

Reached by phone, a McCain campaign staffer intimately familiar with the situation said he didn’t want to speculate on what he might have motivated Schmidt and possibly others to denigrate Palin to the media, but notes, “What people were talking about was how deeply flawed Palin was, rather than how deeply flawed the handling of Palin was, which was [the leakers'] strategic goal."

[Another update:] Lest you think that criticizing a hit piece on Palin means that I endorse Palin, there are several observations from fellow conservatives that I cannot disagree with. First, Charles Krauthammer:

Second, Jonah Goldberg:

Oh, you’re still taking flak, but not because you strike fear in the hearts of Democrats. You’re taking flak because you’re striking fear in the hearts of Republicans. For Democrats, fairly or not, you’ve become a laughingstock. And for some of McCain’s campaign managers, you’ve become a convenient excuse for their failures.

But while McCain’s strategists do not cover themselves in glory for scapegoating you, you are not without blame either. You do seem to think the best advice is for you to stay just the way you are. Leaders listen to the advice they don’t necessarily want to hear.

For starters, every time I see you on TV, you’re whining about unfair press coverage. Don’t get me wrong: Much of it is unfair, and some of it deserves a response. But it’s not presidential. It’s not even gubernatorial. You are constantly taking the bait, taking up the fights your biggest fans want you to take up.

But here’s the thing: Don’t listen to your biggest fans. Don’t alienate them either, but don’t think that because the Palin4Pres crowd cheers, you’re making progress. Politics is ultimately about persuasion, and you seem entirely uninterested in that, preferring instead to play the victim. Well, victims don’t get elected president. Ronald Reagan was a laughingstock for liberals and despised by the press. But he didn’t whine or take the bait.

Second, peddling a few platitudes and truisms about free markets and limited government is no substitute for really knowing what you’re talking about. Yes, you can talk well about the stuff you know — oil drilling, energy, etc. — but beyond your comfort zone, you fall back on bumper-sticker language that sounds fine to the people who already agree with you but is useless in winning over skeptics.

President Bush had the same problem you do, which is why there’s a hunger for Republicans who can effectively articulate and sell our policies and philosophy. That’s why the wonks have the upper hand. Mitt Romney, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, and other hands-on types are what the party wants and, frankly, needs.

Here’s the good news: You have time. Here’s the better news: You have something no one else in the party has — charisma. And I don’t mean you have the most charisma like it’s a consolation prize for not being elected prom queen. If money could buy what you have, Romney would have bought it all by now. Good politicians can learn how to win over audiences, but the great ones are born with the ability. Reagan had it. Clinton had it. Obama has it. You have it. You are the “It Girl” of the GOP.

What you lack, you can learn. If knowing how to describe the situation in Pakistan or explain the "doughnut hole" in health-care coverage was all you needed to get elected, an intern with a subscription to The Economist could be president.

So here’s my advice. Stay home and do your job and your homework. You’ll still be a national figure come the primaries. But if you can’t surprise your detractors with your grasp of policy when you re-emerge on the national stage, you won’t win the nomination. More important, you won’t deserve to.

Goldberg is implicitly optimistic that Palin can "learn" and can learn to persuade. I'm not sure if I share his optimism.

Third, David Frum is more unsparing.

The McCain campaign is over. The duty of confidentiality has expired. The next campaign has begun. If conservatives are to avoid catastrophe, they need to hear from those inside what exactly happened. If true, the leaks constitute an urgent warning and public service. I believe they are true. For sure they confirm what I have heard during the campaign and after. Instead of complaining about these leaks, conservatives should heed them - and fast.

The thing is, if a journalist wanted to write a piece on a politician as a cautionary tale, it wouldn't have been done in hit-piece fashion like Purdum's. If Republicans are to take a lesson or two away from this, yes, Palin has flaws, she isn't ready for the national stage, and she may not [ed.] be ready in 2012 or ever. But the other story has to be the incompetent nimrods who took over the McCain campaign and made it incomparably worse.

By the way,

(#172363)

Submitted by Pranky on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 3:29pm.

over in Looneyville, Moe Himself is looking for some loyalty oaths WHICH BETTER HAPPEN SOON -- or else...

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/07/01/a-friendly-suggestion-to-former-mccain-campaign-staffers/

Purge! Purge!

That thread is a doozy

(#172419)

Submitted by TXG1112 on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 6:36pm.

Every time I follow a link to Red State I exceed my personal best for stupidest thing I've ever read:

Consider this an endorsement for Sarah Palin at the TOP of the Repub ticket in 2012. Here’s why:

The left are frightened to death of her

She is not intimidated by anyone on the left (see #1)

She is as far outside the beltway as any American resident can be on the continental United States (and liberal Hawaii doesn’t matter anyway)

The Repubs will not win with another white man this time around

We can beat the Dems to the punch with the HISTORICAL election of the first female POTUS (besides, I can’t stand the thought of yet another year of crowing by the Dems claiming the HISTORICAl election of the first female POTUS)

She’s got integrity (yes, character matters — writers from Time Magazine, call your office)

She doesn’t have to “connect” with the common folks — she IS one.

She’s a babe

Sometimes I wonder if there is a very subtle spoof/trolling campaign afoot, but I don't think anyone is this good.

--- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

What everyone seems to forget

(#172499)

Submitted by stillnotking on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 2:40pm.

is that the nominations of major parties are not given, they are seized. The person who determines whether Sarah Palin is the 2012 nominee is Sarah Palin.

I guess it's like sports fans giving unsolicited advice to the draft committee, but even dumber because there is no draft committee.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

Yes and No

(#172829)

Submitted by TXG1112 on Sun, 07/05/2009 - 9:40pm.

nominations of major parties are not given, they are seized.

I think this is much more true for the Democratic Party than Republican. I don't think anyone can say the McCain seized the nomination the last time around. More like the last man standing. I just think that the Red State comment betrays an incredible ignorance on the posters part. There is no way that Palin will ever get within sniffing distance of the nomination again. The Wall Street wing of the Republican party will never let it happen.

[closed tag]

--- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

McCain Won By Default, Really

(#172834)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Sun, 07/05/2009 - 9:51pm.

Depending on the field in 2012, someone else could do the same for the Republicans again, given the lack of an obvious "next in line" other than Romney, who had some serious problems the last time around. If the Wall Street Republicans are desperate to stop Palin (and, given his loopy economic positions, Huckabee), it would behoove them to come up with a solid candidate of their own. If they can't, and they really believe Palin is hopeless even if Obama is vulnerable (no real point to the discussion if he isn't), they'd probably just back off, let her run, and hope the defeat in the general election would finish her and her followers.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Whether Obama is vulnerable or not

(#172866)

Submitted by HankP on Sun, 07/05/2009 - 11:51pm.

just for appearance and reputation sake the GOP has to run someone at least somewhat believable, unless they want to just give up on the house and senate.

I blame it all on the Internet

Solid Candidates

(#172864)

Submitted by TXG1112 on Sun, 07/05/2009 - 11:47pm.

This is rather the crux of the problem. I don't believe that the Republican party has any solid candidates at the moment. I think that baring some unforeseen disaster that Obama will not be particularly vulnerable come 2012.

I think that Romney was the wall street choice in '08 as he is a north eastern technocrat who is largely socially moderate. If the Palin wing continues to dominate the Republican party I think you can expect the wall street types (and their money) to migrate to the Democrats wholesale. If that happens, the Republican Party will cease to exist as a national force.

--- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

Why the focus on the "wall street types"?

(#172867)

Submitted by Username on Sun, 07/05/2009 - 11:55pm.

Goldman Sachs doesn't seem to care which party's in power -- either way they get what they want.

edit: I guess I should ask what you mean by wall street types. Campaign and PAC donors in the financial sector?

Too true about Goldman...

(#172874)

Submitted by TXG1112 on Mon, 07/06/2009 - 7:49am.

Wall street types is short hand for the wealthy, pro business, anti regulation, generally socially moderate north eastern Republican. Another name would be country club Republican. This demographic provides a significant amount of funding to both parties but more naturally finds a home with the Republicans.

In previous years the Republican party was financed by the pro business types and staffed by social conservatives. Neither can really survive with out the other, but as with every other endeavor its better to have money than time, so I imagine that the wealthy backers of the Republican party will be OK.

--- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

If Palin Runs. . .

(#172562)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 6:14pm.

. . .and accomplishes nothing other than to make sure Mike "Poor Man's William Jennings Bryan" Huckabee doesn't win Iowa, I will consider it a job well done on her part.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Does that means you're a Romney man?

(#172566)

Submitted by catchy on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 6:19pm.

Who's left?

Too Soon To Tell

(#172571)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 6:21pm.

But if Huckabee wins the nomination, I'm going to write in Goldwater and call it a day.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

You'd vote Palin over Huckabee?

(#172573)

Submitted by catchy on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 6:26pm.

Sure

(#172575)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 6:29pm.

She won't necessarily be the best candidate, but unless Zombie Michael Jackson ends up on the Republican ballot and wins Iowa, Huckabee remains the nadir of plausible Republican nominees for 2012.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

So you're for whichever R could win the general in '12?

(#172610)

Submitted by catchy on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 8:02pm.

And you don't think Huckabee has a chance compared to Palin?

Just seeing her obvious lack of ... 'linear' ... thinking capacities again I wonder why competence doesn't figure in this. You really want someone at the helm of the exec. who can't coherently explain herself for 10 minutes about why she's quitting her job?

for once we agree!

(#172608)

Submitted by nilsey on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 7:47pm.

i definitely agree that if michael jackson came back from teh dead, as a zombie, and decided to run for president, it would definitely be as a republican -- and iowa republicans would vote for him.

Member of the Forvm Five

Mitt and Jesus. -nt-

(#172569)

Submitted by Pranky on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 6:20pm.

A reasonable thing to ask for

(#172366)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 3:37pm.

regardless of how bad Palin was. Moe isn't asking them to publicly drink the Kool-Aid, all he wants is basic professionalism - if you take money to do PR, after it's over you keep your mouth shut.

Reasonable? That's Nuts.

(#172368)

Submitted by Harley on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 3:45pm.

Moe is asking political staffers -- not PR people, btw -- to take loyalty oaths forbidding them to make critical statements about political candidates Moe Lane supports. And if they do? He wants to make sure they never work again.

Now I don't know what Moe does for a living -- I'm guessing not much -- but that kind of threat is something worth taking seriously (while making fun of it), if only becuz it is both vapid and counter-productive, not to mention of a piece with the current GOP obsession re pretending failure is the fault of everything and anything *other* than the ideological dishonesty that got them there.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

Staffer vs PR

(#172370)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 3:51pm.

Well, the whole operation is a PR effort. You might have a point if it was people who hired on for McCain alone and left before Palin started, but I don't think that's who he's talking about.

It's not about blame for failure, it's about violating basic business ethics. "I'll accept money to do advertisements for you, but the minute the paychecks stop I'll reveal everything bad I know about your product." Hell, I'm surprised it wasn't written into their contracts -more evidence of incompetence.

Again, This Ain't Business, It's Politics

(#172374)

Submitted by Harley on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 4:19pm.

And there is nothing more common, nothing, than the staff of a losing campaign, particularly a losing presidential campaign, offering opinon regarding the loss, and yes, some excuses and a little finger-pointing too. And given the circumstance -- the Palin fiasco -- it would have been surprising if someone hadn't done exactly that.

Moe's desire to make sure those insufficiently loyal to a cause he made up in his animal brain never work again is despicable. Arrogant and retarded, too. But mostly despicable.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

Gotta agree with eeyn524, here.

(#172385)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 4:58pm.

Regardless of whether Palin did or did not sink the campaign, I'd find it difficult to bring on people who were loudly and actively slandering the campaign after the fact. You do expect talk, but you expect that talk to be sotto voce and kept to people's offices, behind closed doors. Public sniping is a no-no.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

Worse, it was the McCain people themselves who picked Palin.

(#172397)

Submitted by tomsyl on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 5:30pm.

I know I didn't, and neither did Karl Rove afaik; Libby was in gaol, and Cheney doesn't know because he was really drunk at the time. So if it was such a huge error, why don't the McCain laddies immolate themselves in Times Square at noon or something entertaining like that instead of all this coulda-woulda-shoulda stuff? Dipsticks.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

Would you hire them? -nt

(#172379)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 4:39pm.

Who Kidnapped Moe's Brain?

(#172365)

Submitted by Harley on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 3:34pm.

The guy was one of the best voices at Tacitus. Now? Not so much.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

And at Obsidian Wings

(#172399)

Submitted by mmghosh on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 5:36pm.

IIRC. Which remains v good, even without his being there.

Absolutely Right

(#172426)

Submitted by Harley on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 7:01pm.

Heck. He put up a picture of my daughter on the day she was born. Man does that seem like a long time ago.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

i see that as a taunt

(#172433)

Submitted by nilsey on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 8:27pm.

you should hold in reserve for your daughter (hopefully not too) difficult teenage years -- "i've got blog posts that are older than you, sweetie, don't talk back!"

Member of the Forvm Five

Heh

(#172437)

Submitted by Harley on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 9:00pm.

I'd better get that bookmarked right away.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

It was either Sam Peckinpah or Warren Oates.

(#172395)

Submitted by tomsyl on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 5:26pm.

Details here. Another DVD for the weekend, I'm thinking.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

You Pretty Much Can't Go Wrong With Oates

(#172438)

Submitted by Harley on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 9:00pm.

Peckinpah neither, for that matter.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

I read a page or two of the article.

(#172296)

Submitted by nyoos junkey on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 4:33am.

I'm not sure why anyone cares. Live by the sword and all that.

As for the Obama quote - I'm not sure why you include it, it really doesn't mean anything, certainly not that all that seperated Sarah and Barack was 4 months of coaching.

Sad, and Yet It Makes Me Happy

(#172201)

Submitted by Harley on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 5:38pm.

Becuz this diary is as good an example as we'll need that the GOP is well and truly doomed. The zombie party, staggering forward, dining out not on brains, but pale grievances and petty ideological paranoia.

Want Palin? You deserve her.

Yum.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

The thing is, I don't want Palin

(#172261)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:43pm.

Hot though she may be. You know that I was "just OK" with her pick and you know that I've concluded that McCain shouldn't have picked her. But I do object to the dishonest vilifying.

Quite frankly, I'm taken aback by the overwrought hyperbolic reactions from the Left about her, and I'm pissed that advisors in the McCain campaign would trash her in order to divert attention away from their own incompetence. She was a flawed candidate, but she didn't deserve the massive smear campaign that started from Day One and she didn't deserve that hit piece from that asshole. Would I favor her for 2012? Probably not, and probably never. There are more qualified candidates out there, to be sure.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Probably Not?

(#172263)

Submitted by Harley on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:53pm.

I find that a little scary. My left foot is more qualified than she is. And it's got a big bunion on it.

As for the 'dishonest villifying' -- I know that's how you feel, and I know that's the larger talking point, but I've yet to see you prove it beyond a little dubious cherry-picking -- and just to point out one example, your willingness to swallow the party line re her shopping spree suggests that vilifying is largely in the eye of the beholder. Who is blind. (Unless the second 'L' in your comment refers to a process by which someone dishonestly builds someone else a villa. In that case, why complain?)

I also find it amusing that you're pissed off at McCain campaign staffers who had the temerity to say what most of us already knew. She was not only a bad pick, she was the Titanic. It's hardly a massive smear campaign to say so. And again, you are well stocked in anger regarding this, but not so much when it comes to facts.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

BFD. My cat's smarter than Roland Burris

(#172362)

Submitted by tomsyl on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 3:09pm.

and it's been dead for seven years. And Joe Biden's spontaneous humor is way funnier than Franken's strained tomfoolery, even though I hear Franken's smarter than Stephen Hawking.

Are you seriously trying to impose an IQ test on politicians?

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

IQ Test?

(#172364)

Submitted by Harley on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 3:32pm.

Nah. That would empty out both Houses. Palin's pathological dishonesty, not to mention the cheerleader/mean girl narcissism, is more the point.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

The facts are aplenty

(#172269)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 10:08pm.

And Jim Geraghty already pointed out Purdum's dishonesty. The smear campaign on her was apparent from Day One, piled on by many right here at the Forvm. I know you and others don't like her, but why traffic in lies and half-truths and untrurth? If your case is so strong, you needn't have to go there.

Concerning McCain's campaign staffers, they were on a losing team before Palin was picked, and they stayed a losing team afterward. Palin had plenty of flaws, but it was pretty obvious that they mishandled her re the press and they mishandled the media/blog onslaught after she was picked. Worse, instead of saying "I screwed up", which is what professionals do, they anonymously said "she's a vindictive witch, etc," which is what dickheads and asswipes do. Since Steve Schmidt is a protege of the dickhead and asswipe supreme, I guess it should have come as no surprise that he cover his sorry butt.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

I Dunno, Bird

(#172271)

Submitted by Harley on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 10:26pm.

Geraghty's NRO whiner is awfully thin, and not much of a fisking. He condemns Purdam for voicing opinions he finds unfair, eg that Palin is proud of what she doesn't know. But doesn't come close, given the length of the piece, to convincing me it seethes with lies and half-truths.

You're more convincing than Geraghty is. But still...

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

Maybe the new mods will stop censoring your diaries.

(#172213)

Submitted by tomsyl on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 6:41pm.

You know, the ones you write all the time to counterbalance BD's so you're not simply left holding the threadbare "Republikkans suck!!" line as your only counterpoint while he keeps getting F-Ped. The ones you put all the effort into, but which keep getting suppressed by the farces of evil - I promise to vote you up before I even read what you have to say.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

I Don't Care Who Writes Them

(#172244)

Submitted by Harley on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 7:52pm.

The idea that some diaries are actually comments in unnecessary disguise is hardly new here. Even to you. This one is simply crap, but that's not really the point of my comment. The point is that the GOP is a zombie party, acting on all its worst (not to mention moribund) impulses. Bird's kneejerk defense of the best possible symbol for the party's current and fetid state?

I dunno. Since you're in the mood, why don't you make sense of it?

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

We deal in lead, friend.

(#172358)

Submitted by tomsyl on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 2:46pm.

Problem is, you are a creative guy when you counterpunch and get drunk on metaphors. Plus, most conservatives here agreed months ago that the GOP is in one of those downward death spirals even the red baron couldn't pull out of so that horse won't hunt no more.

I happen to love drive-bys, and I don't think dope-slapping a particular writer necessaarily is as symbolic as you apparently do. And btw, I prefer "foetid" because it evokes a sstench better than your spelling does.

Anyway, why aren't you out getting wasted over the landslide victory of your classmate Franken? Is it my fault for not paying up on the hooch I owe you for some bet or another I typically lost?

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

I think "knee-jerk"

(#172250)

Submitted by kenb on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:07pm.

more accurately describes your reaction to BD's post -- he's not defending Palin so much as he's attacking Purdum, and I think he makes some reasonable points. My impression is that you didn't really read the post before you commented but just noted BD's byline and spotted a few key words.

It's your fault he's being repressed, Tomsyl.

(#172219)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 6:48pm.

As for BD, there is a hypothesis afloat -- that BD's got some assistance from those Forces of Evil. Change the signs on those Suck Equations and you get a Blow Hard.

Now you are getting all Higgs boson on me.

(#172225)

Submitted by tomsyl on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 7:00pm.

Sorry my Ich spreche nicht math. that's why I have a kid, for math stuff and when I need my own forgotten passwords cracked.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

Interesting

(#172217)

Submitted by Username on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 6:47pm.

Since your last diary was posted before the first ice age, I guess you won't be commenting on anyone's diaries again.

Hello Pot? It's Mr. Kettle on Line 4.

(#172223)

Submitted by tomsyl on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 6:57pm.

Hey, wasn't me reflexively crapping on someone who seems to write half of the diaries here - it was that guy who went to school with Al Franken.

Plus, everyone knows I authored the diary with the most net negative votes (-11, and it can still be voted against even though it's five years old) in the history of this site, bar none. Not even the recent Obama-esque try at erasing our past can suppress that fact - it's even mentioned in my Wikipedia entry.

Wait a goddam- OK, which one of you treacherous, backstabbing hackleteers torpedoed the four-page tomsyl Wikipedia entry?? You haven't heard the end of this, pixel snatchers.

(And you probably think that "Ice Age" crack will deter me from another Goramania diary. Dream on.)

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

It was very likely HankP, he's just that sort of hackleteer

(#172226)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 7:01pm.

... he's watching us suffer, from afar, sniggering ruthlessly into his grimy sleeve as we attempt to make do without him.

I heard his hacker name is "Long John Scripter."

(#172357)

Submitted by tomsyl on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 2:38pm.

aka Snoop Code Dog. And he's a co-editor of 2600, where his blue box exploitzzz are the snuff of legend.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

Heh. I met Draper a couple of times.

(#172371)

Submitted by Zelig on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 3:57pm.

He was a bit older than me, but he sought me out for info regarding long lines signal switching. I was not impressed with him as a person, but remain impressed with his later exploits and coding.

The "Captain Crunch Whistle" business is sort of a myth. When I worked for Ma Bell I learned from an old timer how to "whistle down a trunk line". It was simple. Any child who could whistle could do it. Thousands of ATT techs knew this trick from the moment the 2.6K signaling tone was implemented. Draper exploited a couple of other weaknesses, which were dealt with by ATT engineers in time. I think one or two may still exist today. Ho Hum.

Getting my brain picked by Captain Crunch was an interesting experience. It was rather like the Three Blind Men and the Elephant story, only bi-directional.

thx for the info re 2600 magazine. I'd never heard of it before. Maybe I'll check it out.

Me: We! -- Ali

2600 is nothing but fun.

(#172393)

Submitted by tomsyl on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 5:21pm.

They've been sued for IP infringement more times than Edwards has been named in paternity suits. No one writes for it under their real name. (The editor is "Emmanuel Corley"? Yeah, you bet.) With your tech background you'll detect some stories and supposed hacks that are total BS, but they get a lot of pseudonymic articles on the insides of Walmart's wireless POS system, getting rebate checks for stuff you never bought in the first place, how to mess with Comcast's billing computers and other fun (in the abstract of course) hijinks of dubious legality.

When I was a collegian I knew an MIT type who gave me a blue box (black actually) that worked just fine, but only from a payphone. I hardly used it because I had ARPANET access that let me call the University of Hawaii free and then reroute the call to my parents, girlfriend, fence, etc. I bet I still have the thing, and I can't return it because I think I read somewhere that he died in a strange way. Maybe I should find it and send it to the Smithsonian.

And speaking about sending stuff - this weekend, promise.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

Heh. Phone hacks.

(#172456)

Submitted by Zelig on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 1:49am.

I don't like the idea of illegal stuff, but one simple "hack" was to install a single capacitor of a certain value across your phone line, then whenever anybody called you, they would not be billed. This was the one that drove the ATT engineers crazy. Records would show that the call was placed, but that nobody answered.

Pay phones were a constant struggle. One task I had was implementing numerous changes to central office equipment to defeat the various devices used for cheating the phone co. out of a handful of quarters. I heard about the constant struggle field installers had keeping pay phones vandal and phreak-proof. Now that's all a thing of the past.

It's simple and really inexpensive to build a phone system from scratch, where everybody can call everybody else. Most of the expenditures have to do with billing equipment and circuitry that allows for wiretapping and monitoring of phone calls, and yes, it's still as simple as ever to monitor sounds in your home, anywhere near a land line phone, even when it's hung up. Now that I look back on it, the most satisfying work I did for Ma Bell was when I solo'd the exchange located a stone's throw from the linear accelerator, SLAC, and being on call for suicide traces. Most every time I did a trace on a call-out, I made enough overtime money to take a small vacation, or to buy the house a round, and saved a few people from killing themselves or others.

Draper is still alive, as far as know, though his Wikipedia page shows a maniac that hasn't handled the ravages of time very well at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Draper

Edit: re your last sentence............ooooh, I can't wait!! I just sent out a Nikkormat body for repair and will send this body to the same guy in San Diego for a little lube and oil change. (I use another guy for lenses) Cheers!

Me: We! -- Ali

I wouldn't lump the coprophagous Purdum in with Liberals

(#172164)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 12:26pm.

He's an Equal Opportunity Sleazebag. I'll never forget his treatment of Bill Clinton some while back, while the snow was yet on the ground. If for no other reason than attacking other Liberals, I'd avoid tagging him as Liberal, though Lord knows there are enough Liberal Sleazebags in this world of sin, willing enough to bite the ass that feeds them.

I repeat myself somewhat: Sarah Palin, say what you will of her bumptious politics, her children and her family are off limits. Period. And I'm not terribly fond of using phrases like Naughty Monkey Double Dare pumps: this betrays Purdum as something other than a standard PeeCee Liberal. We Liberals don't talk about women like that. And there's that business about leaking amniotic fluid. Not that there's anything especially disgusting about a pregnancy, but Purdum is, without a doubt. Disgusting, that is.

The whole article is nauseating. No fan of Sarah Palin, I am half-tempted to defend her, if only because hackery of this sort makes me angry. And I am sure I am not alone: every such attack only makes Sarah Palin's supporters even angrier.

Thanks, Todd Purdum, you sickening little catamite.

I Simply do not Get

(#172310)

Submitted by AndrewSshi on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 9:42am.

Palin obsession. Okay, that's not entirely true. I get how she serves as something of a cultural marker, a way for people to say, "I am part of an urbanized, intellectual elite, and I spit on Palin," or to say, "I spit on the urbanized, intellectual elite, and so embrace Palin." But in that way she kind of represents the very, very worst of American politics, of the style of self-identification over substance of policy. And now that the election's been over for, oh, going on eight months and there are many real problems that we as a polity still have to deal with, the Palin fascination thing is just ridiculous.

I don't think it's all culture war.

(#172311)

Submitted by Jordan on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 9:58am.

Or at least, speaking for myself, the reason she's a fascinating figure is that she came within 8 points of becoming VPOTUS, even though she is completely unfit/unqualified to make policy decisions at that level and seems to largely make up her own reality as she goes.

In other words, I'd be more than happy to see a conservative rube who spends his/her weekends mud-dogging in a pickup truck or making moose jerky become a national candidate, so long as that person had a basic grasp of national policy issues. Or, to take a different example, Newt Gingrich is odious to me in many ways, but he's at least competent when it comes to national politics & crafting policy.

That so many people were willing to vote for a ticket capable of such manifestly dangerous errors in judgment is chilling. That she continues to have a shot at the White House is alarming.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

Not All Culture War

(#172324)

Submitted by AndrewSshi on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 11:18am.

But the way that she serves as a lightning rod almost a year after the election has sent her back to Alaska speaks of a different set of underlying concerns than McCain's odd choice to go with her as VP nominee in spite of a gross lack of qualifications. The level of dislike that I've seen her inspire is also out of all proportion to her lack of qualifications.

What frustrates me is that given the fact that we've got a nasty guerrilla war and the worst economic crisis in seventy years to deal with, I would hope that more Americans would refuse to act in the highly stylized culture war rhetoric that is such an annoying part of our political discourse.

Personally, I just can't understand

(#172327)

Submitted by Jordan on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 11:27am.

what would make people nominate her, vote for her, or continue even now to support her, given her gross lack of qualifications. I was shocked in the fall, and I'm still shocked now. That's about as simply as I can put it.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

Just what policy decisions does the VPOTUS make?

(#172314)

Submitted by hobbesist on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 10:25am.

Besides the ones that the POTUS delegates to him/her, I mean.

And I guess it sounds ominous if you say she came within 8 pts.--maybe a bit less so if you say almost ten million votes, or 190-some electoral votes. Because that sounds more like she didn't come at all close (and to the Vice Presidency, remember, not the Presidency). McCain made a cynical ploy to take a pretty face with a compelling biography and vault her to national attention--it not-unpredictably blew up in their collective faces, and her shot at the big leagues went with it (a fact obvious to everyone but her and those who continue to treat her as some great threat).

I think Andrew's got it right. Whatever her merits & demerits, she is--at this point completely, but always at least partially--a shibboleth, nothing more.

Bene vixit, bene qui latuit

Mr. Dee Dee Myers is a liberal

(#172179)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 1:42pm.

From one who knows.

Purdum is certainly not a Republican or a conservative; quite the contrary.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

(throws hands in air) baby jayzus and the mule he rode to egypt

(#172182)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 1:56pm.

Dee Dee Myers talking about Toady Purdum is like the disturbingly apt marriage of that bald-headed shidweasel James Carville to Mary Matalin.

Reading the links is a big help

(#172203)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 5:41pm.

It wasn't Dee Dee Myers talking about Purdum.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Oh I know, you do too.

(#172208)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 6:25pm.

Sorry, should have made some transition there. My apologies, thought you understood I was basically in agreement with your position.

Fair enuf

(#172256)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:27pm.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

You Know, I Saw James Carville and Mary Matalin discussing

(#172185)

Submitted by Traveller on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 2:38pm.

...the Sanford issue on CNN and they certainly are the odd couple...I was left scratching my head.

And yet, who am I to say how people should find whatever contentment people can find?

I guess I wish them well.

Traveller

naughty monkey

(#172177)

Submitted by nilsey on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 2:24pm.

thats not a unPC phrase un purdum's part -- its a brand of show:

http://www.amazon.com/Naughty-Monkey-Womens-Double-Dare/dp/B0018AMB1W

edit: brand of SHOE, not show.

someday i'll type something and it will come out right.

Member of the Forvm Five

What's the other side of the story?

(#172161)

Submitted by Blue Neponset on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 12:09pm.

Palin didn't embarrass herself in front of the media?

Palin didn't get pissy about not speaking on election night?

Palin wasn't called 'barracuda' in high school?

Palin didn't get into a blood feud with her brother in law and fire a public official because of it?

Palin didn't hop on a plane for an hours long plane ride while leaking amniotic fluid?

Palin was well prepared for her debate and press interviews?

Palin didn't flip flop on her support of a bridge to nowhere?

Palin didn't pretend she went without health insurance?

Palin didn't hire people for jobs which they were unqualified for?

Palin didn't alienate Alaska Republicans with her ham-fisted political tactics?

Palin didn't write an e-mail pretending to be God?

There is no other side to this story. What details should Purdum have included in this story to make it more fair and balanced?

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

There doesn't have to be "the other side"

(#172175)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 1:30pm.

As long as the writer isn't misleading, I don't have an issue. But what Purdum wrote was grossly misleading.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

I thought it summed her up pretty well

(#172183)

Submitted by Blue Neponset on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 2:15pm.

The only new information in the article was the McCain campaign people's confirmation of what has been reported since Palin first entered the national stage.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

Of course

(#172202)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 5:39pm.

Your perceptions and Purdum's perceptions are similar, distortions and dishonesty and all. He created a narrative to your liking, and you heartily approve. So surprise there.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

You are a Republican

(#172206)

Submitted by Blue Neponset on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 5:53pm.

Who don't get to lecture me on honesty.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

If you're dishonest, then I get to

(#172254)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:23pm.

And the Purdum piece was dishonest. Here's a typical example of Purdum's dishonesty, and it's dishonesty that you endorse:

By the time Election Day rolled around, the staff had been serially pummeled by unflattering press reports about the gaps in Palin’s knowledge, her stubborn resistance to direction, and the post-selection spending spree in which she ran up bills of $150,000 on clothes for herself and her family at high-end stores.

The staff, I'm sure, was pummeled with unflattering press reports but his unqualified comment on the clothes is a lie. Palin didn't run up those bills. The new clothes were acquired by consultants working the campaign and paid for by the RNC. Quote:

The Palins suffered a lot of embarrassments, and when I ask Todd about some of them, such as Sarah’s $150,000 wardrobe and the $40,000 in luxury goods Todd reportedly received, he becomes defensive. "That was out of our control," he insists. "She never went to Saks, or any of that stuff. You come into a campaign late, you put all your trust into the team, you got people who are working on VP ops for a long time, and we’re just focused on debate prep."

You see, Blue, that's the problem with the Purdum piece. It weaves factual information with false information, and at 9,800 words, it's just not worth the effort to extract the worthy from the bullsh*t. Your problem is your incurious and uncritical acceptance of this crap because it fits your little storyline.

I advise against the practice of invidious overgeneralizations, Blue. And here's a question for you. Given that you've said, "So hopefully there is a 527 out there right now willing to ruin John McCain's and/or his family's reputation if it needs to be done," why should any derogatory thing you might say about your political opponents have any credibility whatsoever?

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Wow, You Sir, Are No Trial Lawyer

(#172257)

Submitted by Harley on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:32pm.

That's your example of Purdam's dishonesty? 'Proved' by a quote from the First Dude?

There may be problems with the Purdam piece, but that's not one of them. Being dishonest -- gullible? -- about someone else's dishonesty may not be the best way to prove their, you know, dishonesty.

Altho' I'm sure you were relieved to learn that the shopping spree -- that Todd told you didn't happen, heh -- didn't break any campaign laws.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

There're plenty of other cites,

(#172259)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:37pm.

saying the exact same thing.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Not Good Enuf, Bird

(#172260)

Submitted by Harley on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:41pm.

If you're going to call the author a liar, you need to do far better than the limp 'plenty of other cites' -- what, WorldNet Daily? Glenn Beck? -- to prove it while using that quote. Because even a brief perusal of the 'cites' on the subject suggest Sarah had herself quite a retail jag on the GOP's dime.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Tho' I'm curious as to what she purchased at Victoria's Secret.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

Fine

(#172264)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:54pm.

Then the New York Times should suffice, no?

Cable television, talk radio and even shows like “Access Hollywood” seemed gripped with sartorial fever after campaign finance reports confirmed that the Republican National Committee spent $75,062 at Neiman Marcus and $49,425 at Saks Fifth Avenue in September for Ms. Palin and her family.

Advisers to Ms. Palin said on Wednesday that the purchases — which totaled about $150,000 and were classified as "campaign accessories" — were made on the fly after Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, was chosen as the Republican vice-presidential candidate on Aug. 29 and needed new clothes to match climates across the 50 states. They emphasized, too, that Ms. Palin did not spend time on the shopping, and that other people made the decision to buy such an array of clothes.

I could go on, but the thing is, Purdum has access to the same sources I do (and more) yet he still chose to be dishonest. But I'll give you this: I am no trial lawyer.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

"Advisers to Ms. Palin..."

(#172267)

Submitted by Pranky on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:59pm.

emphasized..."

Sweet Special-Needs-Jesus. I'd bet her advisers also would have emphasized that she's "one smart cookie" and bakes a "heckuva brownie"

Maybe you can dig up a quote from her mom or something.

Maybe so

(#172285)

Submitted by stillnotking on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 12:53am.

Quoting her mom would be just as journalistically honest as quoting sources with strong personal and professional reasons to trash her, and at least the relationship would be disclosed.

I'm really pretty amazed that anyone is defending this article. I did finally go back and read the whole thing, and it is one of the most blatantly sleazy and manipulative screeds I've ever encountered. I felt like taking a shower afterward. And I would never in a million years vote for Sarah Palin.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

Given The Defenses We've Seen Here. . .

(#172286)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 12:58am.

. . .of the sport of trashing Palin's children as "fair game" and of Andrew Sullivan's breathtakingly ignorant obsession with Palin's reproductive organs, defending a garden-variety sleaze artist (and politely ignoring said sleaze artist's prior trashing of Bill Clinton) is rather small potatoes.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

So You've Gone From Quoting Todd...

(#172265)

Submitted by Harley on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 10:01pm.

...to quoting unnamed Palin advisors.

Hey. Maybe you and Purdam could write a column together!

But better still? Let's look at the quote that you say proves Purdam is an a-hole and a liar.

By the time Election Day rolled around, the staff had been serially pummeled by unflattering press reports about the gaps in Palin’s knowledge, her stubborn resistance to direction, and the post-selection spending spree in which she ran up bills of $150,000 on clothes for herself and her family at high-end stores.

What part of that quote isn't true? The Palin camp was indeed pummeled by unflattering press reports about her lack of knowledge, her stubbornness, and yes, the spending spree. Purdam is simply stating a fact. Those are the stories that she was pummeled with. He is describing the toxic atmosphere that swamped her candidacy. He is NOT suggesting he watched her buy the clothes, he's not even suggesting that she bought them herself.

Do better.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

in any case

(#172274)

Submitted by nilsey on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 10:34pm.

bird dog would have to prove that purdum didn't know the real facts about the story in order to call him a liar.

the phrase "prove the lie" comes to mind.

Member of the Forvm Five

It's Actually Worse Than That

(#172277)

Submitted by Harley on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 10:56pm.

Imagine suggesting that the national guard story hurt Bush's campaign for Prez. And then being called a liar becuz the National Guard story wasn't true.

It's entirely beside the point. The notion here is that the story, a story, had impact. Bird is mindreading the bad intentions. Sorta like others might mindread re the anecdote in Bird's NY TImes link. About the women who dashed into a store at the last second to pick up some cute clothes for Trig to wear at the convention. Did Palin know about it? Did she suggest the little prop needed a cuter onesie?

I dunno. The fact is simply that the clothes were purchased and the story became a problem for the campaign. In this, Purdam is entirely correct.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

Worse than that? Not even

(#172320)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 10:44am.

The story on the wardrobe had impact, but it was still a false story because the "culprits" were the RNC and their image consultants such as Jeff Larson and others who went to stores to buy stuff, not Palin. Larson is another Rove protege who helped run the McCain campaign into the ground.

I can understand that you wouldn't want to believe anyone on the Palin campaign about these events, but it would be nice if you extended that same degree of sketpticism to hacks like Purdum. But your storyline is lodged, and once lodged, it's tough to unlodge no matter how false the narrative is and no matter how many controverting facts there are. But I guess double standards r yu, which is sad. Purdum continued the wardrobe falsehood through mentioning "unflattering press reports," which is a typical hit-piece tactic used by asswipes like him. It was just one more brick in his pile-on opus.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Completely Dishonest Comment

(#172375)

Submitted by Harley on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 4:22pm.

My point, and c'mon, at least make some faint attempt at addressing it, is that Purdam wasn't reporting on whether or not the story was true, but rather that it was one of many stories that hindered the campaign effort.

This is so patently obvious that Geraghty didn't even bother fisking it.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

Lodged storylines

(#172356)

Submitted by Jay C on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 2:07pm.

So why were the accounts of the Palin-wardrobe-spending-spree a "false story"? Simply because Gov. Palin didn't actually go out and buy all that stuff personally? (Nor, we notice, did she send any of it back AFAICR.) Is it the truth/falsity of the reportage that seems to bother you so much, BD, or the interpretation that "The Press" in general chose to put on it?

In the latter case, I would suggest your dudgeon is a bit misplaced - at least as far as expecting any better standards out of the American media when it comes to coverage of political "issues" is concerned (scare-quotes deliberate: "coverage" of election matters in this country's media are way more likely to focus on trivia, "style" issues or sensationalist scandals rather than policy or ideology).

Case(s) in point:

2000: "Al Gore claims to have invented the Internet"

or, on a slightly more heinous basis:

2004: John Kerry falsified his Vietnam war record"

... And, as I recall from the discussions on the old Tacitus site, the latter claim was not exactly dismissed with much vigor by the starboard-side commentariat. Yeah, a few rote swipes at the SBVT, but not, IIRC, a lot of pixels expended on the need for Objectivity and Truth in political reportage.

"Wired" planted the "Gore invented the Internet" story.

(#172401)

Submitted by tomsyl on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 5:39pm.

That mag is light and fluffy as the crema on your latte but it's hardly the house organ for conservatives.

AFA the Kerry kerfluffle, the guy arguably lost the election the moment he pulled that incredibly sappy salute and "I'm - do you know who I am? - and I'm reporting for duty, Mein Koronel!" crap at the convention. I don't recall a similar Brownie salute and "I'm Sarah Palin and I'm dressed for success!" moment in the last election cycle, but I could have missed it.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

Because the person(s) making the decisions...

(#172373)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 4:13pm.

...on Palin's wardrobe wasn't Palin, it was McCain's campaign consultants, which happened to be overpopulated with Rovian incompetents. The real storyline--had the drive-bys bothered--had nothing to do with Palin and everything to do with a mismanaged campaign, starting with Jeff Larson's foolishness. But in order for Purdum to advance his storyline, he downplayed the role of the consultants, some who not coincidentally happened to be his anonymous sources, and laid it on Palin. Like I said, she had her flaws and problems, and it would have been nice if Purdum were a real investigative journalist and separated the shortcomings of the campaign and shortcomings of Palin. Purdum did not provide such a service. It was more of a disservice than anything, emphasis on "dis".

As for Kerry, I'm not going to answer for what other conservatives said about his time in Vietnam. What I said about Kerry was pretty much what Michael Dobbs reported on the situation here. My only issues were Kerry's improbable story of a Christman Eve boating trip into Cambodia, and there were some unanswered questions about his first purple heart.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

How The Hell Do You Know...

(#172377)

Submitted by Harley on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 4:26pm.

...Palin had nogthing to do with it? A woman rushes into a high end kid's boutique and picks up new clothes for Trig hours before the convention. Yes, the woman was a staffer. But are you sure that Palin had nothing to do with the decision?

Of course you're not. Unless of course Todd tells you so.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

So if you basically think all Republicans are liars,

(#172251)

Submitted by kenb on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:11pm.

then why participate at a site that's at least nominally designed to encourage cross-the-aisle discussions? I'm genuinely curious -- seems like it would be more enjoyable for you to stick to lefty sites.

C'mon, anyone on Forvm can lecture anyone on honesty.

(#172209)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 6:29pm.

BD is basically good people, and if he's a Repub, he seems to be reasonably fair about his own party's shortcomings. But I'm convinced many Repubs, the honest ones at least, are genuinely disappointed by what passes for Repub leadership these days. So let's give the man a break: imagine for a moment the Repub leadership had a clue, would become an honest and vocal minority, start gaining seats back in the name of genuinely Conservative candidates.

Wouldn't that be good? C'mon.

Why are we grading Republicans on a curve?

(#172227)

Submitted by Blue Neponset on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 7:02pm.

For one of them, BD is indeed reasonably fair. Should I be encouraged that a reasonably fair Republican thinks Bush didn't lie about WMD's in Iraq? That actually makes me feel worse about the Republican Party.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

I didn't say that

(#172255)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:27pm.

I said "prove the lie". You made the accusation, so my position is that if you make such a statement then it's your responsibility to back it up. What I have said is that I have not seen evidence that proves Bush lied about WMDs.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

There's a Gary Larson cartoon

(#172229)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 7:05pm.

Cowboy with smoking gun stands over a dead body laying on the range. He explains: "He said a discouraging word."

And more to the point, grossly unfair.

(#172180)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 1:51pm.

In a working democracy, all other things being equal, we generally get the politicians we deserve. Alaska deserves Sarah Palin: she reflects that sort of body politic.

And let's get a few things straight here: even by Purdum's account, she got along reasonably well with her Democratic opposition. That says something, to me anyway. Says she's a go-along get-along politician, with the usual addiction to power and patronage. So what? And Bob Riley of Alabama isn't? Let's not act like Alaska is the only place bumpkins get elected to high office.

Now here's what could and should have been written, had I the temerity and gravitas to put a few thousand words about Sarah Palin in Vanity Fair. I'd start with a comparison and contrast of Alaska and some other state where bumpkins are in the ascendancy. Who still supports Sarah Palin? Of course, I'd have to fly around and do a dozen interviews, but it would be fascinating, now that Obama's honeymoon is over, to see who's still on board for Palin and McCain. The number is substantially larger than folks might first imagine.

This Memorial Day, I listened to John McCain at the Phoenix Military Cemetery. Granted, it was one of those oft-regurgitated speeches one hears on such occasions, but I saw a great many hard-nosed biker dudes wiping their noses, Vietnam vets all. I wasn't wiping my nose, but I didn't vote for McCain either.

What do these people believe? What mythos pulls them into this belief structure? Describe that belief structure, take these people dead serious, at face value, without the smirking and condescending. That would be some great reporting.

The stories about her vindictive temperament,

(#172160)

Submitted by Jordan on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 12:09pm.

her unwillingness to study issues or prep debates, a temper ill-suited to grasping the details of policy, and casual relationship with truth, even the truth of her own past statements...these whispers might seem like part of a smear campaign if they only came from a few sources. But there has been a steady flow of such stories from inside Alaskan politics as well as the national campaign.

Now I'm as skeptical of unsourced rumors as much as anyone. But do you think it might be possible that some of these reputed flaws & shortcomings are real?

Thank you! Vote Republican!

Yes, it's possible, maybe more so

(#172176)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 1:35pm.

I acknowledged that Purdum's piece may very well contain truths, but I think Geraghty's comment is highly relevant:

The irony is that there’s room in this world for a profile that is critical of Palin, but that preferably didn’t begin with the supposition that she is the root of all evil in the political world.

The problem is that Purdum's own contempt and hate got in the way.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

I'd like to see a more sober treatment of Palin

(#172178)

Submitted by Jordan on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 1:41pm.

as a public figure too, preferably with more sources willing to go on the record. But many of the specific examples of Palin's opportunism, lack of preparedness, personality issues and dishonesty seem to be accurate.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

My 2 cents on this.

(#172150)

Submitted by Pranky on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 11:44am.

I think of sarah palin as yesterday's news, and a worn out joke I've heard too many times. I don't really care about her. While I do find some republicans' interest and support for her interesting, I don't think she'll ever be on a national ticket again.

I've tried to read a few blog posts about this article (BD's post included) and my eyes glaze over every time. I guess I have zero interest in the inside story here, and will never read the Vanity Fair article. People like Schmidt and Kristol are a waste of oxygen.

So yeah, it looks like it's just a celebrity gossip piece. No more, no less.

And this is coming from me, Pranky. A liberal who's very, very glad these people are as far from power as they are right now.

I voted

(#172143)

Submitted by uh_clem on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 11:19am.

I voted to fp this. And will do the same for almost every other diary until the 2008 articles scroll off the front page. I encourage others to do the same. I even voted for my own diary, which I normally wouldn't do.

BTW, I don't think Todd Purdum is an "angry liberal". He's a writer working for a general-interest magazine and he's written a juicy celebrity hit piece. Meh.