Lies and the lying liars, etc.



Sarah Palin took to Facebook last night to express shock that fellow Republicans are using dirty tricks on one another in the campaign:

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.
We will look back on this week and realize that something changed… I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

Well, she might want to ask her former running mate about that. But of course she knows about it—McCain hired the same damn people to train Palin to serve as his lip-sticked pit bull in 2008. She goes on:

I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted.

Hahaha! Yeah, no one encouraged hordes of deluded, racist nitwits to claim Barack Obama was the Kenyan-born, communist, granny-unplugging love child of Bernadette Dorn and Malcolm X, Mrs. Death Panels Lady. Jeebus, these people are beyond shameless.

[X-POSTED at Balloon Juice]

Posted by Betty Cracker on 01/28/12 at 07:45 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBarack ObamaElection '08Election '12NuttersSarah PalinTeabaggery

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Someone ask Gabrielle Giffords about Sarah’s refusal to use “harsh tactics.”

Palin’s abiding tragedy is that no matter how often she revisits it, no matter how feverishly her typing monkeys try to rewrite history, she will never win the 2008 election.

Since Sarah the Harpy has been out of the spotlight for a while now, I won’t begrudge her a little “me” time. After all, there are probably some lovesick fans who are desperate for her to be viable in politics for some bizarre reason.

So let her thrash around like an Alaskan trout out of water, gasping for relevance, and then maybe she’ll just flop over and croak, once and for all.

BTW, is that background lunar? Because I reckon Governor of the Moon is the central administration post Gingrich has in mind for Snooki.

Hell, if so, it might even be enough to tip the election his way.

Someone ask Gabrielle Giffords about Sarah’s refusal to use “harsh tactics.”

Hey! Sarah didn’t *order* some guy to interpret those surveyor’s marks as a call to look at Giffords through a theodolite.

Something that’s bothered me about her for a long time is her obsession with the concept of vetting.  It appears in nearly every one of her pronouncements.  I think it stems from the accusation that she wasn’t vetted.

Most often she equates vetting to determining a candidate’s deep political beliefs rather than (what I think of it’s rather ordinary meaning): double checking a potential candidate to see if they are legally eligible,  aren’t in the midst of any legal trouble, and don’t have a criminal record.

You “vet” antiques to make sure they’re not fakes, not if they’re desirable, a good example of the period, or beautiful, or valuable.

I wish someone would ask her what “vetting” means to her. 

Perhaps it’s my misunderstanding though.

Oh, I think you’re absolutely dead on, Bob, that she still feels the sting of the concept that she wasn’t “vetted,” and tries to turn it on her enemies. And that “vetting” might be meant to exclude loose cannons and impulsive loons who are likely to be distracted from their jobs by shiny objects like COINS. And,of course, serial quitters.

Also, kudos to either Inanity Jane or her ghostwriter for “sat on their thumbs.” It’s a neat trick to be both subtle and crass.

Good point, Bob. It seems the most unvetted candidate on a national ticket since maybe ever is projecting.

Mrs. P: I think Palin shitcanned R. Mansour and got herself a brand new ghostwriter. There’s something a bit different about the tone.

“sat on their thumbs.”

I noticed that too, Mrs P. Gnarly.

Let’s see. The Secret Service, FBI, CIA etc. evidently think they vetted Obama since he’s privy to all sorts of state information. Palin, not so much. Is she calling them incompetent?

Nah, by “vetting,” she means hurling random meaningless accusations and epithets in the hope that some will stick in the populace’s amygdala.

The McCain campaign tried to keep her on a leash once it was evident that she was embarrassing them by stirring up the crazies too much (as has been happening with Gingrich and the “String him up!” and “Send him back to Kenya!” shouts from some in his audiences). That sticks in her craw. Tough.

Oh sweet tears of liberty but why are we still seeing posts about this woman who means absolutely nothing to ME and is not only unimportant but meaningless and shrieky and harpy and word-salady and washed up and screechy and means nothing to ME so you shouldn’t post anything about her EVER!

/shorter whiny-ass BJ commenters who don’t know real-life comedy and pretend to be above it all anyway.

P.S. here some doggy-love for Geg who informed us she and hubbie put down their Henry today.

Apparently, the primary qualifications for being a Republican these days are 1) having no sense of irony and 2) being utterly devoid of self-awareness. I’m guessing there’s a test of some kind.

As to “sat on their thumbs”, maybe she was remembering “Weird Al” Yankovic’s song “I Can’t Watch This” (a parody of M.C. Hammer’s “U Can’t Touch This”), which included the line “Those Siskel and Ebert bums / oughta go home and just sit on their thumbs”.

Comment by Frank Stone on 01/28/12 at 02:51 PM

She’s really got this thing about “unvetted” candidates. :P

@ Humboldt—Haha! I might have to steal Kevin’s line: “I’ll never be your Chris Bowers.”

It’s almost as if ‘unvetted’ is a code for something…

I think she means what a veterinarian does. Hogtie a candidate and neuter him.

Vetting means things like determining if said candidate’s husband ever belonged to an anti-gubmit, gun-totin’ militia-ish political group.  She’s still pissed about getting that one hung on her Todd.

I think the vetted thing is well understood on the right. They absolutely believe that there was some smoking gun in Obama’s past—a scandal (like taking drugs or sex with a guy) or a specific fact like “not a US citizen” which, if it had been known, would have resulted in the electoral equivalent of a “mistrial.” Its kind of related to their general authoritarianism. Basically an election is just an election. A whole bunch of people cast their votes for the candidate they like best. The “vetting” theory assumes that they should be protected against being allowed to vote for people who might not be “right” in some way.  But its like deciding to throw out an entire trial with witnesses and everything because of a typo on the address list that a lawyer furnished the court.  Its that level of concern with the letter of the law instead of the spirit.

Its the same fixation on some notion of an essentially incorrect/unknown Obama that makes them keep demanding to “see his grades” as though if we found out he got a C in algebra we’d know for sure that he wasn’t fit to be president even though he’d been excercising the job perfectly competently for three years.  Its what causes Romney to accuse Obama of “never having run anything” when the guy’s been running the entire country.

In conclusion since Mr. Aimai is making noises like he wants to go to sleep—the GOP wants a do-over, like the 2000 election. They want a tiny technicality to render the entire election null and void but they want the fig leaf of the imaginary “fact” that the voters would have rejected Obama had they but known the real truth about him.


No elfin’ way Sarah wrote this! It’s not word salad enough.

“Vetting” is not something politicos invented. It simply refers to the process of assessing whether a person meets an established standard.  That standard could be purely political or academic or gang- related for that matter. So Dear Sarah, as crazy as she is, is using the term vetting correctly even if her aims are crazy.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main