« Links With Your Coffee - Friday | Main | John McCain: week in review »

Sean Hannity - Sarah Palin



Does Sarah Palin have the strength and confidence to appear on the Meet the Press? Well, it would seem that the answer is "no"

Someone ought to tell Palin that the Alaska Permanent Fund isn't her program. It's been around a long time and she doesn't determine how much is put into the checks. Palin failed to note that the Fund was to promote the economy when oil prices are low, not when they are high. But she's as knowledgeable on Alaskan issues as she is foreign issues.

According to the Alaskan Constitution if Palin is found to have abused her position in office she must be impeached. The advantage of the Alaskan Constitution is that the people who created are still alive and know how it is to be interpreted.

how many other canadians here hate that they can't watch these daily show clips?

Brendan (et al): You can watch full episodes of The Daily Show and Colbert Report online the day after they air, by going to their site. (Full-screen, high-quality, too).

The Daily Show is here:

There's a tab on that page for all Colbert episodes, too.

They're not region-restricted -- I'm in France and have no playback problems.

So with Sarah Palin we are getting more of the same thing we had with Bush: a public servant who is anything but public. We elect these people and then they are handled half-to-death by those who are really running things behind the scenes. Bush hasn't made a truly public speaking engagement since the wars began. He has only appeared in extremely controlled situations where there hasn't been any sort of opposition to call him out on his lies. The only audience the Bush people have allowed to hear him speak are military groups, civilian military contractors, or right-wing propaganda mills (otherwise known as “think tanks.” I hate that name for groups who do very little thinking). And forget about Dick Cheney; he hasn't come out from behind the curtain in so long we've almost forgotten about him completely.

And now we have Sarah Palin who seems to be almost completely a figment of the conservatives' imagination: a loving mother, a maverick elected official unafraid to take on the powers that be (curious since “the powers that be” are the folks in her own party), morally steadfast, a proud defender of America, and—because we are in the TV age—hot. She is being treated by her handlers as if she were some Saudi princess who cannot have contact with anyone outside of her immediate family. In her two interviews with the twin morons of Hannity and Gibson she has yet to offer anything but the most puerile thoughts on the position she may soon fill.

I really appreciate that The Daily Show is absolutely the only news source that takes the piss out of what we are being presented as news, but Fox News is too terrifying in its scope and they don't give a shit about what the little TDS thinks of their maneuvering. Plenty of Americans seem all to willing to accept this completely mediocre woman as our next vice president (and, perhaps soon afterwards, president). Why wouldn't they? They have already accepted far less in the case of the current White House resident.

But you're forgetting the important stuff - like Hannity's chair was a much more comfortable distance away from Palin, and he didn't attack her like Gibson did, and and and

don'ch know?

Hannity might as well have pulled out a feather tickler and started tickling Palin's fanny.

This shameless and intellectually dishonest display sure plays to the conservative base, who are not in the least bit interested in reality as long as they are goosed and coddled and hear their key words and phrases.

If this obviously pathological and completely vapid woman becomes our Vice President, please, please, please don't let McCain croak or we're in a world of shit--if we aren't already.

Olbermann might as well have pulled out a feather tickler and started tickling Obama's fanny.

This shameless and intellectually dishonest display sure plays to the liberal base, who are not in the least bit interested in reality as long as they are goosed and coddled and hear their key words and phrases.

Just having some fun with you mat, don't get all 'great gusto' (or what ever it is that you do when questioned) on me, I'll be at soccer games all day anyway ;)

Difference? Second interview of a VP candidate (with a better than average chance of becoming president) that we, the American people know very little about. She has been on the national political scene only since the Republican convention and the vote is rapidly approaching and we have heard nothing but "stories" about her. We are supposed to be introduced to her - with at least the pretense that some of us are voting with our brains, that our leaders are supposed to be informed in the issues, skilled in the political arena (and not just feel they are on a mission from God and it doesn't really matter what they know 'cause she is just a tool of the Lord's - 'cause at this point, that's sure what I believe since I've seen more unscripted footage of her in front of her church than anywhere else.)

This is an INSULT to anyone with a brain - no matter who you are voting for. long has Obama been out there in public view? Biden? How many times have then been in front of the nation?

No, no, Cory, your point is well taken on this. I would heartily agree that Olbermann is wearing his partisan views on his sleeve these days, although in all due fairness Keith was tossing Obama some juicy softballs while Hannity was doing the same but also batting for Palin.

Moreover, Hannity's honesty and veracity are questionable at best, while the worst you can say about Olbermann is that his partisan enthusiasm brings into question his journalistic integrity (assuming that journalists present the news objectively and without overtly expressing their own political bent); however, he's not an outright liar and cannot be as easily fact-checked as some of the piffle Hannity tries to pass off as fact. Hannity has no integrity to begin with and doesn't even try to to be a journalist; he's a propagandist and shamelessly so.

Olbermann is definitely in danger of drifting into that territory, no doubt about it...

So good point, Mr. Syngas. We may disagree vehemently on many matters, but I would never accuse you of being a plagiarist or patently dishonest. I've come to enjoy your role as devil's advocate on Norm's weblog.

Thanks mat,

I could use a raise for the work I do here. Maybe you could write some letters ;-)

I thought your views in the electric car thread were pretty informative.

But no more compliments! You're a fiend, a fiend I say!


I thought his information in the electric car thread was slipshod at best, and I wasn't impressed at all with the side-scuttling maneuvers he used to avoid acknowledging that fact.

People who are too fundamentally dishonest to admit their errors even when they are plainly exposed, warrant no serious credibility. Occasionally Syngas rises above that level of drivel, but mostly he exudes the vapid artifices his name implies.

Honesty: without it, you're a schmuck.

I didn't say he was right or wrong, just informative. I'm always interested in how people of differing ideological views look at important issues.

I think Syngas expresses lots of anti-liberal views, but at the same time he's on this explicitly liberal blog having discussions/arguments with mostly (passionate) liberal commenters; I have always found that odd.

I mean, hardly any far-left liberal types are frequenting extreme right-wing blogs and arguing with the far-right wingnuts. I would find that fairly futile. Norm and I used to do that back in the early days of blogging, and what I realized is you cannot hold a conversation with someone who is screaming at you and won't listen to a word you say even if the facts prove you right. Sometimes it was fun just exposing their hypocrisy even if they didn't see it, but after a while you grow tired of that kind of dialogue where everyone is shouting and no one will change his or her position.

Then again, I'm often accused of being an arrogant asshole, so I'm not exactly a model of ideological civility. But I've never pretended to be a nice or civil guy. I represent the muscular wing of liberalism, both intellectually and physically. I'm like the trade unionists of old who fought with ideas and a Billy club; I'm Eugene V. Debs on steroids. I'm certainly not the soft and effete hippie that the right loves to stereotype as the typical liberal. Many liberals might resent or dislike my tough-guy attitude, but I am sure they won't mind having me at their side if things get ugly.

But back to Syngas:

Either Syngas is a masochist who gets perverse pleasure from extreme negative feedback, or deep down he's a liberal who, like a closeted homosexual, is fighting with all his might his most inner identity that he loathes and yet realizes is not going anywhere.

I'm not sure which one of the two he is; however, suffice to say he's a fascinating psychological study.

And really not such a bad guy. I give him credit for his perseverance. He certainly makes Norm's comment threads more interesting,

I remember back in the day, Syngas seemed like a conservative who wouldn't listen to a word anyone said and was completely stuck in the mud.

Then came calligraph/tea for tillerman.

Suddenly, Syngas looked less crazy in comparison, and at least willing to submit to some points when facts point otherwise, opposed to calli, who never will.

I enjoy the conversations.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives