watch it: “SARAH PALIN BOOK SIGNING – Interviews with Supporters”

Typical gotcha journalism!

As funny as that video was I think it bears pointing out that a right wing journalist could just as easily put together a video of ignorant liberals.

JoshB makes an interesting point, and certainly something I was planning on commenting upon. Sure, you could have easily found a number of Obama supporters that didn’t know his policies or give a cogent explanation of why they like him. That’s not the scary part (not entirely, anyway). The scary part is the idea that such people could elect someone as severely unqualified for public office as Sarah Palin.

I was quite amused at another story I read about her book tour, where she cut off a signing after signing autographs for 60% of the crowd. Seems she really doesn’t like to finish things, does she?

True, you can interview ignorant liberals and ignore those who offer more informed reasons for supporting Obama’s presidency.

So what are the non-ignorant, more informed reasons for supporting a Palin presidency?

You have to wonder. Are the people purchasing these books actually planning to read them?

You have to wonder. Are the people purchasing these books able to read them?

So what are the non-ignorant, more informed reasons for supporting a Palin presidency?

Thanks, Bluejay. I was gonna ask the same thing.

And, yes something for the liberals to read
#2 – The Twilight Saga Collection

Um, is that a joke? Cuz there’s nothing in the least liberal or progressive about *Twilight,* which is antisex, pro-abstinence, obviously anti-woman, and sneakily anti-men. In what way is any of this “liberal”?

Make your foe look ridiculous, de-humanized them, and then whatever they say and think just does not count. Not a very honest way to have a conversation, but typical.

The interviewer in this video is polite and gives the interviewees every opportunity to explain themselves. He’s *trying* to have a conversation with them, and they are unable to participate in expressing *their own opinions.* There is no left-wing blowhard equivalent of Glenn Beck shouting them down. These people have the floor to themselves. How is this dishonest?

Um, is that a joke? Cuz there’s nothing in the least liberal or progressive about *Twilight,* which is antisex, pro-abstinence, obviously anti-woman, and sneakily anti-men. In what way is any of this “liberal”?

Yes,of course it’s a joke, much like the video, just stated in a polite way.

The interviewer in this video is polite and gives the interviewees every opportunity to explain themselves. He’s *trying* to have a conversation with them, and they are unable to participate in expressing *their own opinions.* There is no left-wing blowhard equivalent of Glenn Beck shouting them down. These people have the floor to themselves. How is this dishonest?

Please, you can’t be serious.

– We don’t know what else any of these people had to say. We don’t know if any other people were questioned. Some of the edits and cuts are too tight, just get the sound byte you need and to hell with a conversation, and dear god if they start making sense move on.

– This is NOT a conversation. If you think it is maybe we could try something similar with you. Maybe go back into to your archives and snip out just the right phrases and string it all together. Maybe post it on YouTube with some hillbilly music. Sounds like fun but not my style.

– We don’t know what ended up on the cutting room floor.

– Produced by “New Left Media”, well at least they don’t have the caption “Fair and balanced”.

– The Beck thing I mentioned involved a polite conversational reporter type who went around asking New Yorkers a group of specific policy and social issue questions. The people responded. At the end the reporter informed them that they were all mostly in agreement with points laid out in one of Becks books. The people were mostly shocked and horrified. Very funny. No blowhards required, but it’s interesting you’d jump to that conclusion.

I also watched the Canadian video mentioned above, and it was clear that at least some of the people there knew it was a joke, even Huckabee laughed.

What’s even more shocking in all of this is the amount of low blows, and dumping on a successful woman. Some one who rose to the rank of sitting Governor, rose to vice presidential candidate. A strong, independent woman, someone who can be as at home with a baby as with a shotgun.

MaryAnn stated in another blog that she admired the Sigorny Weaver character in “Aliens” for be able to strap on a rifle and fight the beast. There is no real life alien fighter, but when you look at the crap SP has had to deal with I’d say she comes close. But on the other hand MaryAnn posts this video that pokes fun of SP fans, and by association pokes fun at SP.

Why would someone so involved with feminism do this? You might not agree with her policies, you might not like her lack of cankles, you might not like her sing song voice, but damn, you should respect what’s she done and not go for the cheap laugh.

It’s been my experience that almost every successful politician has a cadre of loyal supporters who are not so much interested in what the politician actually stands for as much as what they choose to read into said politician.

I know from personal experience that not every voter who supported Bill Clinton was a brilliant intellectual and not every one who supported JFK was an especially enlightened individual. Yet we like to believe otherwise because we like to believe that “our team”–i.e. the people who support the same candidate that we do–can’t possibly have the same type of human flaws as “their team”–i.e. the people who support the other candidate–even though both Democrats and Republicans tend to attract the same type of American voters whenever they win an election.

I never realized how true this was until I watched one of the presidential debates in 1984 and noticed that both the Democratic and Republican candidates showed the same reluctance to give a straight answer to a straight question. Yet only the Republican candidate was called on his evasive answers.

I don’t kid myself that all the Republicans’ problems have been due to media bias but I also don’t kid myself that pretending that only “dummies” vote for the other guy is going to keep the Democrats in office. Or that continually mocking and exaggerating the ignorance of the opposition is going to win all that many hearts and minds. “We” tried that tactic in 2004 and it failed horribly.

Why on earth would we want to do it again?

Oh, yes. Because we’re “smart”….

Why would someone so involved with feminism do this? You might not agree with her policies, you might not like her lack of cankles, you might not like her sing song voice, but damn, you should respect what’s she done and not go for the cheap laugh.

Feminist Misunderstanding #3: assumes that all feminists will vote for/cheer/approve of any woman, simply because she has the right plumbing. This is wrong. Usually people who think this also think feminists hate men, and therefore must love all women. But we see people as people, not just their genders.

And, funny how you jump right to physical characteristics: cankles, voice, when no one said anything derogatory about Palin’s appearance. That would indeed be misogynistic.

We don’t vote for her because she is a conservative, the group that most vocally seeks to deny women full personhood. It doesn’t matter that the representative is a woman like me, anyone that toes the party line that denies women personhood is someone I am not voting for.

So, no, I don’t “respect what she’s done”. She’s a mouthpiece for the right wing. (Not all liberals are pro-woman, either, as I noted last week, but that’s another topic.)

And, funny how you jump right to physical characteristics: cankles, voice, when no one said anything derogatory about Palin’s appearance. That would indeed be misogynistic.

You have not been keeping up with MaryAnn’s articles, I have, and the cankles thing comes from an article she wrote recently, just threw it in for effect.

So, no, I don’t “respect what she’s done”. She’s a mouthpiece for the right wing. (Not all liberals are pro-woman, either, as I noted last week, but that’s another topic.)

I knew a comment like this would come. so predictable. So political affilation reigns over feminism, interesting. Political gain over full personhood. It’s no wonder that many women have a hard time getting ahead.

We don’t vote for her because she is a conservative, the group that most vocally seeks to deny women full personhood. It doesn’t matter that the representative is a woman like me, anyone that toes the party line that denies women personhood is someone I am not voting for.

I see, let me get this straight, the group that denies women there full “personhood” runs a woman for VP and maybe President, and the group that champions women, beats one down because her ideas don’t completely fit their mold.

Wow. This is even funnier than the video.

the cankles thing comes from an article she wrote recently

An article that had nothing to do with this one, so your point is a blatant straw man (with a dollop of misogyny for good measure).

So political affilation reigns over feminism

Or you don’t understand feminism, which is pretty sad given that Ninja just explained your misunderstanding in the very post you’re quoting.

It’s just as well that you won’t respond to me, chuck. *grabs popcorn* Accounting Ninja can school you just fine.

you should respect what’s she done

I should respect what she’s done? Why?

– Ken
You are right, I don’t believe that Clinton was rejected because of her sex. It was a combination of her personality, ideas and history, and the strength of her opponent that led to her loss. There are too many states, cities, and government entities with women in charge for sex to be a big issue anymore.

-MaryAnn
Yes I can respect men (or women) that I disagree with. I do it all the time. I have respect for certain commentators on this blog even though I don’t agree with them. Usually the more thoughtful who actually have a point and seem to be decent considerate types. I even respect Obama although I disagree with most of what he is doing and how he is doing it. Thankfully he is fairly ineffective. You simply can’t rise to level that Obama has without having something going for you, and that deserves some respect. I just want him out of office before he can do more damage.

I can respect someone who has strong positive ideas and acts on them, even if I disagree, I can just choose to not support them. I don’t respect criminals, liars, thieves and the like, that’s different. It seems that the tactics often used to discredit the other side often involve pasting these sorts of labels, stupid or liar or criminal onto the opposition when no such charge is valid. This blog page is full of this already, people can hardly wait to name call, guilty of it myself from time to time, but working on it.

To hate…no…HATE someone because they vote yes on something that I would vote no on, that seems a bit extreme.

I didn’t say you should support Palin, just respect her. It would show a maturity that rises above petty politics and you might even win new friends. Propping up this video on your blog doesn’t show anyone respect, it might make you look good to your liberal friends, but in the long run it is probably career limiting, it just leads to the dark side.

-JoshB
One of the reasons I posted the link to Beck video was to show the contrast between the way he treated the people vs. how New Left Media treated the people. You didn’t comment on that. Yes, sure the New Left Media video is painfully funny, but imagine being one of these people and to have a mic and camera shoved in your face and then asked questions, and when out of nervousness or surprise you answer badly, to have it posted on YouTube. Shameful, disgraceful, disrespectful, mean, and not worth the humor.

Is this the side you all support? Is this the way you think of yourselves? Is this what it takes to be a full card carrying member of the club?

-JoshB
I’m hoping for a better choice than Palin, never said whether I’d vote for her, I’ll leave that choice for later. I didn’t much care for McCain either, pissed me off over the years on a number of issues.

I just don’t understand the hate the left has for Palin. Hate like this usually only comes from a good healthy dose of fear, maybe that’s it.

We’ll see who pops up in the primaries. Palin may just take her book money and go home, first stopping on the way to the bank while laughing.

If it came down to a choice between Palin and Obama, which I don’t think is in the cards, it will be a difficult button push. But I’ll choose the least destructive side.

This particular article takes Democrats to task for their sexism against Palin. Sexism is ubiquitous.

Sorry for the double post. :)

I DO respect Palin’s personhood (not her ideas, though. But respecting personhood is even more important).

Ditto.

I respect everyone’s right to be themselves, to do and say whatever they want as long as they’re not hurting others.

But that’s where it ends. Respect for Palin — or anyone else, for that matter — does not extend to not calling them on their bullshit. People can believe whatever they want, but they’re living in a fantasy world if they think that “tolerance” and “respect” means that no one is going to laugh at them if they say the sky is green and grass is red, and that no one is going to try to stop them from implementing their fairy stories — such as that there’s a significant quantity of oil worth drilling for in the U.S. — in such a way as impacts all of us.