Backfire

NRO’s Kevin Williamson notes that independents think the media has been unfair to Governor Palin (emphases added):

Strong majorities of the public say the press has been fair to John McCain, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. But fewer than four-in-ten (38%) say the press has been fair to Sarah Palin. Many more believe the press has been too tough on Palin (38%) than say it has been too easy (21%).

While opinions about Palin coverage are highly partisan, many independents share the view that the press has been too tough on the Alaska governor. Among independents, 41% say the press has been too hard on Palin, 20% say the press has been too easy and 36% say the press has been fair. Republicans overwhelmingly believe the press has been too hard on Palin (63%). Just 7% say the press has been too easy on her. Nearly one-in-five Democrats (18%) agree that coverage of Palin has been too tough.

Williamson reprises a question I asked in the past week or so: 

This brings up a question: Why do conservatives still feel the need to go through the dinosaur media? If you really want to talk ideas and policy, Rush Limbaugh’s show is probably the best forum, if you can get on. Rush doesn’t have a lot of guests, but when he does he gives them a chance to actually articulate their ideas in a developed way. If you’re looking for a place where substantive conservative ideas can get a hearing, there’s talk radio, the better blogs, Glenn Beck, NR/NRO, the Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, &c. It’s not so much that these outlets are conservative-friendly, but that they’re interested in ideas. The Wall Street Journal is not going to ask a lot of “If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?” questions, or game-show inquiries about the deputy fisheries minister of Hoogivsastan. Treating the fossil media as though they were still the only — or the main — game in town only serves to prop them up and to diminish conservatives’ ability to get a hearing for our ideas.

It would be much more interesting to hear Governor Palin spend an hour with Glenn Reynolds than with Katie Couric.

And the Northern Alliance (Volume II, the Headliners) is certainly a contender, too.

As Williamson notes, it’s time for conservatives to start playing to the few media strengths we have.

33 thoughts on “Backfire

  1. “If you really want to talk ideas and policy”. . .
    Like the Bush Doctrine, oh wait.
    Like Supreme Court jurisprudence, oh wait.
    Like your own personal sources of information, oh wait.
    Like U.S. – Russian relations, oh wait.

    I guess we know why little Ms. violated the Alaska Ethics Law is taking a pass.

  2. RickDFL once again opens his mouth and puts his foot in it.
    Even the guy who invented the phrase “The Bush Doctrine” is unsure what it means. Gibson certainly got it wrong.
    Supreme court jurisprudence: Biden was asked the same question and he couldn’t name any specific case other than Roe V Wade either.

    Like your own personal sources of information, oh wait.
    Like U.S. – Russian relations, oh wait.

    What the Hell are you even talking about?

    The violation of the “Alaska state ethics law” is the opinion of a single investigator hired by a pro-Obama democrat. The “ethics law” in question states that any Alaskan public official holds a public trust and that taking any action that benefits a personal or financial interest violates that trust. So she’d be in violation of that statute if she accepted her damn paycheck. You could find a sheriff in violation of that statute if he calls for backup when he’s being shot at.
    But please, try to make a big deal about this “violation of the law” she committed while, as even the investigator admitted, her reassignment of Monegan was “a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority”.
    Your’e a joke, RickDFL. If she didn’t do everything she could to get Wooten fired & he happened to run over somebody while he was driving his patrol car drunk you’d be screaming that she had showed favoritism to her brother in law.

  3. RickDFL nailed it. Your real complaint with the people who’ve interviewed Miss Congeniality so far is that they didn’t throw her FOX-style softballs. She ought to have something intelligent to say about the Bush Doctrine. She should be able to name a news source she follows. She’s an idiot for pretending that Alaska’s physical proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy cred.

  4. Clown, they asked her questions as though she was a senator whose been in Washington for years or a law professor. Palin is the governor of a state that is non-contiguous with the rest of the United States. All the questions she had problems with were Washington-centric. Even the “news source” question.
    All this was a craven attempt to portray a popular governor who had won a very difficult election against a good ol’ boy network as an idiot because she didn’t read the NY Times as her major source of news. Sheesh.
    If Biden was in that kind of situation he’d just bluster and lie. He’s done it in the past.

  5. Looks like the “anti-hate” crowd has a lot of hate to deal with. The interesting thing is they seem to hate someone they call “little Ms.” and “Miss Congeniality”. *shrug*

  6. Terry, it’s not a huge surprise she was asked “Washington-centric” questions, considering she’s running for 2nd-in-line to the presidency. Which is kind of a Washington-centric gig. She wants to play in the big leagues, but cries when somebody throws a curve ball. If Biden were in that kind of situation, he’d know the answers.

    Gee, what’s wrong with calling her “Miss Congeniality,” Trojan Man? That’s just one of her many impressive accomplishments. It’s accurate. You know, like how you kooks always like to say Barack Hussein Obama.

  7. But Biden didn’t know the answers. When he was asked about Supreme court cases he disagreed with, he mentioned “that one case where the supreme court decided a woman couldn’t sue for back wages when she’d been discriminated against”.
    Biden didn’t know because he’s not a legal scholar. Either of the Clinton’s could have handled that question with ease. Obama certainly could have. Bush could’ve handled it too, because he’s been dealing with the supreme court for years.
    Couric could have asked her about Alaska’s budget process, or dealing with oil leases, but she didn’t. Because it wouldn’t have made Katie look smart.
    Your remark that you want someone who is more knowledgeable about how things work in Washington as 2nd-in-line.
    I don’t. Being an outsider — someone who has not lived their entire adult life among the crooks and liars of DC is a plus.

  8. Nothing is wrong with it, angryclown, but that it seems her primary accomplishment to you says more about you than about her. *shrug*

  9. Gee, Terry, when Angryclown interviews somebody for a job, he generally expects them to emphasize their relevant experience and to know a thing or two about the job they’re applying for. Only in wingnut bizarro world is ignorance a positive attribute.

    Unfortunately for you, what worked in 2000 isn’t going to work this time. Normal people want somebody intelligent to clean up Bush’s economic mess. The personal attacks and lowest-common-denominator appeals aren’t working this time around. That must be a real kick in the head to you wingnuts.

  10. angryclown said:

    “Normal people want somebody intelligent to clean up Bush’s economic mess”

    I think most normal people want someone “disposed to” and “capable of” cleaning up this economic mess. Dilbert says, and my experience with angryclown bears out, that “intelligence” has little practical application. 😉

    Not trying to be anti-intellectual here, merely pointing out that being intelligent enough to figure out “the right thing to do”, actually figuring it out, and actually doing it, are three different things.

    You may can the “Bush’s [Insert Bad Situation]” anytime now, angryclown. We know you irrationally blame George Bush for all things bad, and attempt to minimize the power of everyone other person in government when it suits that agenda. Special, but not persuasive.

  11. Gee, Terry, when Angryclown interviews somebody for a job, he generally expects them to emphasize their relevant experience and to know a thing or two about the job they’re applying for.
    And so you decided to ‘hire’ a community organizer whose claim to fame is that he spent a fortune of foundation money with no discernible result? Or did you decide to take him on because he edited his law school newspaper? Or because he’s a legal scholar who has never published? Or maybe it was those years as a go-along-get-along pol in a political establishment world renowned as a kleptocracy?
    Or did you depend on the resume oh his running mate? I’d check his references. He’s got a reputation as a li–. No. I’ll be polite and use the word “fantasist”.
    Between them those two have never built a business, submitted a budget, or appointed a judge. The have been collegiates, not executives.
    Your a snob, AC.
    But then, in the clown business what’s the worse that can happen if you make a bad hire? Not enough seltzer down the pants?

  12. “Edited his law school newspaper.” Actually, Terry, editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review. Which you’ve discussed here before, in great detail that you clearly gleaned elsewhere. Cause you don’t have a grasp of the points you’re trying to make. None of the wingnuts will call you on your many factual errors, of course, cause they agree with your general outlook and facts are unimportant to them. But Angryclown will.

  13. No, really. When are you going to call Terry on his “many factual errors”?

    The only “error” I am seeing being “called” here is that Terry doesn’t hold the position of “editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review” in as high esteem as angryclown. Is that it? Help me out here, angryclown: is that his “executive experience”? I laughed at that notion before, and while I am willing to laugh again, I want to be sure that this is what you really mean.

  14. Yep, the Harvard Law Review is not a newspaper. It’s more of a compendium of Critical Legal Studies (a/k/a leftist) “scholarship”; in other words, intellectual masturbation framed by Lexis-Nexis searches.

  15. Well Troy here you go:

    Terry wrote:
    “The violation of the “Alaska state ethics law” is the opinion of a single investigator hired by a pro-Obama democrat”
    The report was approved by a unanimous (12-0) vote of the Alaska Legislative Council. That body is composed of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

  16. That body is composed of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

    Palin has made plenty of enemies in the AKGOP.

    The report was approved by a unanimous (12-0) vote…

    …and said, essentially, that there’s really no there, there.

    Move along.

  17. “there’s really no there, there”

    Then why did Terry feel the need to lie about it?

  18. The report was approved by a unanimous (12-0) vote of the Alaska Legislative Council. That body is composed of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
    Then why did Terry feel the need to lie about it?

    Finding Number Two I find that, although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

    Note the use of first person singular, RickDFL. This is not a group finding, regardless of how many people approved it. Try again next time.

  19. “This is not a group finding, regardless of how many people approved it.”

    For starters, your original claim was – “The violation of the “Alaska state ethics law” is the opinion of a single investigator hired by a pro-Obama democrat”. The, at minimum, 8 GOP state legislators who approved the report and it’s key finding must share that opinion. If they did not share that opinion, they would not approve the report. That makes you original claim a lie.

    Next, what on earth is the substantive difference between approving a report which includes a finding and authoring the report itself?

  20. And AC- No president of the Harvard Law Review has ever gone on to be elected president of the United States. And as for calling it a college “newspaper”, that was hyperbole, as in “an obvious exaggeration”. Obvious because HLR is a well-known part of Obama’s resume, exaggeration, rather than a lie, because like a student newspaper it is written and edited entirely by students. Being the president of the HLR is a sign that you are up-and-coming, not that you’ve arrived. Countless presidents of HLR have vanished into obscurity.

  21. “Countless presidents of HLR have vanished into obscurity”

    Quick, name a governor of Alaska, prior to 1990.

  22. So Palin’s resume is as impressive as Obama’s? I don’t think that’s the point you were trying to make.

  23. he, at minimum, 8 GOP state legislators who approved the report and it’s key finding must share that opinion. If they did not share that opinion, they would not approve the report. That makes you original claim a lie.
    Wrong, again, RickDFL. Committees release reports from third parties all the time. Especially in a report that concerns an outside agency there is a always and effort to make the release unanimous so that the subject of the report continues to deal with them as a committee rather than a group of individuals. This was not a “The committee has found . . .” document, it was a “The committee’s investigator has found . . .” document. Do you think every congressman who voted to release the Starr Report agreed with every statement within the Starr Report? Your moniker is RickDFL, don’t you know anything about politics?
    You should read more than left wing talking points once in awhile.

  24. BTW Mitch,

    A few months back you attempted to suggest that no one credible on the neo-con side has been engaging in anti-arab rhetoric, or muslim baiting.

    Do you still contend what was, frankly, either profound ignorance of fact on your side, or wilfull disregard for truth?

    Case in point #1:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    That’s right, the story was picked up by FreePers (shock), and the guy given air time on Fox News (that stalwart of journalistic fairness).

    Your complaints are perhaps warranted, except you have them about 180 degrees the wrong direction.

    And by the way, Mitch, why is it you suppose the Sherrif who introduced Sarah Palin first spoke about Barack HUSSIEN Obama (with a big teethy smile as he shouted Hussien?). Let me help ya’ out, because away from the cameras, the right simply loathes Obama – hates him, hate with a capital H, and when someone attempts to use smear, they love it. They don’t care about his policies, issues or goals, they just hate him for being a Democrat (and a liberal) – all of your phumpering about cult personalities is laid bare as attempting to simply confer on your opposition what you know very well you’re doing one-thousand fold, and it’s heartening to see that the rest of the nation sees your hate filled screeds as what they are, and, as this story showed, while you personally may not be anti-muslim, your particular wing of the republican party, sure as hell is.

  25. penigma:

    Andy Martin? This is the “credible” guy that somehow proves you right? Wow. Could you try again, this time with someone somebody may have heard of?

  26. The NYT has decided that Martin represents common thought on the Right. That’s all you need to know!
    Ayers, though. He has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Left. Nothing.

  27. And if anyone wants to know who the “liar” is, you can check this CNN piece against RickDFL’s claim that voter fraud is a figement of the eveil right wing imagination. Just a trick to suppress minority votes, y’know.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRhrT22BsIY
    First Fox, now CNN. Soon there will not be a news the network the Dems are willing to appear on.

  28. Terry:

    The CNN report you cite contains not a single example of voter fraud. Not one example of an individual voting or attempting to vote illegally. It does contain examples of attempted registration fraud, but no successful attempts. It also fails to note that the bad voter registration cards were flagged as problematic by ACORN itself. Why did they turn them in? Because Indiana law requires they turn in every card they collect.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.