Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes
Ms. Palin walks the national stage as a small-town foe of “good old boy” politics and a champion of ethics reform. The charismatic 44-year-old governor draws enthusiastic audiences and high approval ratings. And as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, she points to her management experience while deriding her Democratic rivals, Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as speechmakers who never have run anything.
But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.
Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.
Change, my ass!
“Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes”
This headline is news? What does the NY Times think she should have done?
Hire her enemies and lash out at her friends?
The media has a very, very distored view on reality.
Not only that, the Washington Post reports that she left ‘a trail of bad blood’, so at least her lashings are effective!
@MikeN
Sounds like Hillary.
#32 – jbenson2 – This headline is news? What does the NY Times think she should have done?
Hire her enemies and lash out at her friends?
Hire the best people? At least that’s what good leaders try to do.
#23 Uncle Dave crawled out from under the rock and said,
“McCain is running for Prez, but given his age, there is a very good probability that Palin will end up there, too. That’s why there is so much concern over her qualifications and abilities.”
And why less concern over Obama’s shorter list of qualifications while running for PRES.?
#29 – Lyin’ Mike
>>The New York Times news pages haven’t even reported
>>his pastor’s statements about ‘goddamn America’
Assuming you can read, Lyin’ Mike, go to the NYT web site and type “wright” and “goddamn america” into the search bar, and you come up with at least 14 articles. (and then it asked me if I meant “god damn” [two words] “America”, where I suppose there would have been even more articles).
Lyin’ again?
Besides, how much press should they devote to this non-story? The guy said it, Obama disavowed him, and went to another church. BFD.
This is such a great example of GOP hypocrisy. Nothing matters more than taking and holding power. Not truth, not the country, not our national defense, not our education, not our physical infrastructure, but whether or not the VP candidate can gut a moose. We are truly Rome, next she’ll appoint her horse VP when McCain dies.
It’s hilarious. The democrats wasted the primaries fighting each other and running an anti-Bush campaign. Since Bush isn’t running that was pointless.
Now the Democrats and media are busy attacking Palin – for having no experience! Just like Obama!
In warfare, the Generals make the mistake of re-fighting the last war.
In elections, the Democrats are always re-running the last election campaign.
Seriously – Obama/Biden should have a huge lead against McCain-Plain by now! WTF?
Can any conservatives on this board point to a *single* factual error in the excellent New York Times piece?
No?
This is what real journalism looks like. Read and learn.
#41 – Wretched One – Can any conservatives on this board point to a *single* factual error in the excellent New York Times piece?
Facts are not important for these folks. The rather stare at her picture and imagine what kind of a great leader she will be.
KEEP POSTING ANTI-PALIN MANURE PIECES, UNCLE DAVE! ALWAYS GREAT TO SEE YOU LIB PRENATAL-GENOCIDALISTS SWEAT SO OPENLY AND PROFUSELY…AND KEEP ON WETTIN’ AND SOILIN’ YOUR PANTIES.
#41
That was easy
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/26/online_exclusive_fatal_error_lies_of
Got any more softball questions like this?
#45–monty==whatsomaddayou? Can’t you read the challenge? Find one factual error in the referenced in the original post.
Course, you should read the corrections page to the NYT. The horrible liberal NYT gave Bushieboy too much credit and has begun correcting the record.
What a dope.
#45 – Hannah
Are you daft?????? Are you brain-dead? Do you have the sense that God gave a rock?
You were charged by the Wretched One with the mission “Can any conservatives on this board point to a *single* factual error in the excellent New York Times piece?”
I guess the answer is “no”.
Of course a newspaper that carries as many stories as the NYT is going to discover some factual errors. Unlike the right wing, the NYT corrects them when discovered.
However, you have been singularly unable to point to a *single* factual error in the excellent piece about Palin and her deceptive representation of her past.
As Jimmy-Boy Hill would say: “Owned”!
#38, I did what you said, and didn’t find any articles. All I saw were links to their blog and various opinion pieces. The few links to news section stories, did not have the words goddamn america. They were protecting Obama by not letting their readers know the words at issue. Calling it a non-story because he disowned his pastor ignores the months prior to his disowning, when the media didn’t report this.
Okay, gangbangers, a star reporter for the NYT made all of his stuff up. The paper has continual errors. It’s a stupid question…how would any of us , unable to interview the principles, know at this time which points in the story are factual and which are biassed and made-up. It will come out eventually. And they wonder why the NYT is firing people like mad…biased reporting does not appeal to the wide swath of potential subscribers.
49–monty==that being the case, why did you initially post you had met the challenge?
Because you are a knuckle dragging republican brain dead bushie-boy. Shouldn’t you be listening to Linbaugh?
#49 – Hannah
Again, the answer is “no”. You have failed spectacularly.
If next week, or next month, or next year, in the unlikely event that any factual errors are discovered, you can rest assured that the NYT will publish a correction.
That’s what distinguishes the NYT from the right wingnuts. In the few occurrences when they DO make an error (like when Judith Miller had her lips firmly planted to Dumbya’s butt about the godforsaken lead up to the godforsaken war in Iraq), they ‘fess up and publish a correction.
See how many times World Net Daily or Jewish World Review or Anal Cyst Limbaugh or Hannity and Pussy Man ever do that. An amputee could count the number of times on his fingers.
Dear BobTard
You are the new, gentle , pretty face of the ever-so-tolerant liberal swamp. I love you guys…. keep up the paranoia. It’s what keeps the liberals looking like goons.
Love,
Montanaguy
#52 – Hannah
Is that some sort of perverse attempt at “humor”?
The hard, cold fact remains: You were charged with identifying a single, solitary factual error (no matter how small) in the excellent NYT article.
You failed. You flunked. Even if we graded on a curve, you get an “F”.
So be a man (or a pre-teen girl, as the case may be), and fess up.
You’ve got nothing to say about the NYT article, other than “waaaah waaaah waaaaah…they’re saying mean things about that pretty lady”.
Certainly no factual errors were found.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!
As the saying goes… You can put lipstick on a pit bull, but it’s still a pit bull.
#52–Montanna==actually, I want to apologize. I don’t have a lot of patience, and that is a character flaw. I don’t mind dealing with conservatives but the mindless spin/flop of the type you regurgitate puts me right on edge. Its not that I disagree but more that I find it dishonest and damaging to America.
Along those lines, an interesting article on how McCain is actually worse than Bush. Who would have thought that?
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1e25f9b0-1d05-4f91-84ce-c19067b5a0a7
#53
Mister MooseTurd,
I have a special place in my heart for you my dear friend because it’s so easy to say just about anything and then wait for you to scuttle out of your dark abode and spew venom into the wind. To me, YOU are humorous. And it’s the constant spewing of vitriolic hate that continues to lure the left into the abyss. Keep it up. You are the reason conservatives feel sane. You are the far other end of the curve. We are the middle. I thank you for that. Without you, we might wonder if we were normal. Keep up the good work for our cause.
Best regards,
Montanaguy
p.s. It’s a beautiful full-moon fall night in Montana and the elk are bugling up in the hills. I’m going hiking in one of the three wilderness areas that surround my town tomorrow. That’s my center. I can’t conceive of what yours is really.
#55
Ok, bobbo, thanks for the article I’ll read it later. Personally, I’m more interested in people’s opinions and how they got there – even if it’s not substantiated by some link/editorial/propaganda that they then feel they have to defend with their life blood – than the constant bickering over biased links, blogs and articles. But that seems to be what we’re handed on this blog. I’d like to see something other than conservative-bashing articles and headers now and then, but I take it as it is. I actually have followed the blog for years simply for the tach stuff, but became fascinated by all of the weird liberal extremism. I live in a very liberal community, but it doesn’t get this spiteful. Just regular ‘joes’ who have their worldview; live and let live. Just my biased opinion, of course.
#56 – Hannah
>>Without you, we might wonder if we were normal.
I hope I’ve proved my point, and that your insurace covers inpatient mental health treatments.
btw, make sure you blow the guts out of those bugling elk. Sarah would be so proud!
Haw. Better gird your loins for November.
#45
You’re joking, right?
The first link was to a correction for an entirely different article.
The second link is to an article complaining that the NYT was not sufficiently critical of Bush’s lies.
So again I ask: What are the errors in the NYT expose on Palin?
#57–montanna==we all see the world thru our filtered biases. I agree there are more liberal threads here than conservative, but there are both. Most of the “Nanny State” abuses are about liberal excesses as are the Politically Correct stories. Hoomans tend to remember what upsets them more than what they agree with, so, if you think the blog is conservative bashing, you probably are conservative. But I’m a lib, and I would say thats my opinion too.
You say: “I’m more interested in people’s opinions and how they got there – even if it’s not substantiated by some link/editorial/propaganda that they then feel they have to defend with their life blood.” /// Straw Man and Red Herring. Its fairly uniformly requested here by your peers that opinion statements are fine, just say how you got there, but FACT statements should be backed-up. Daniel Monyham (sp) famously said that in political debate “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.”
When you disagree with the NYT article saying it is all wrong but can’t come up with a single misstatement, then post to a reference that is totally irrelevant, and when caught doing so you still defend your action rather than laugh and say you got lazy and will do better next time, you have just Hannitized the discussion. To pull a Sean Hannity–to shit in the community punchbowl.
Blogs are like politics. They drive people to their more extreme positions because they are quicker to type and get to the heart of the matter. Nusance is the first casualty of a blog especially when it is polluted by nefarious types with completely “other” agendas.
The previous link is rather simple, going to one simple minded analogy of what its like talking to Repugs who criticize Obama for lack of experience then line up for Palin because “she’s an executive.”
Heres another reference to class warfare, corruption in politics, values voters and how America is being damaged by the effective third grade tactics of the Repug party:
http://press.princeton.edu/releases/m2_8664.html
#61—montanna==not enough lipstick.
Here is all you need to know about the two presidential candidates:
One candidate fired missiles at the enemy
The other candidate fired staples into telephone poles.
Thank you a lot for sharing this with all of us you really realize what you are speaking approximately! Bookmarked. Please also visit my web site =). We may have a hyperlink change agreement among us!