The Daily Caller has released the contents of a Journolist thread involving Sarah Palin’s uterus that took place between August 30th and September 1st, 2008. Now, let me be clear: most people involved in that particular thread thought that believing this nonsense was crazy – and even many of the ones who didn’t still thought that such a discussion was beyond the pale, for a variety of reasons. We will let those people pass on by, with only a cheerful suggestion that they never, ever take a Trig Troofer seriously in public again if they wish to avoid being raked over the coals for their silence to date. I think that’s fair: don’t you?
But then there are the crazy people.
Paul Waldman
Aug 30, 2008, 4:04pm
If the date on this photo from the Anchorage Daily News web site is correct, she is absolutely, positively, not seven months pregnant. Some of the pictures are doubtful, but this could barely be clearer:
http://www.adn.com/2008/03/09/v-gallery/339576/baby-news-strikes-a-chord-030908.htmlI assume that this is the Paul Waldman who is a Senior Correspondent of The American Prospect?
William A. Jacobson; “Of all the banter, perhaps the most important big picture item is that the discussion frequently centered on whether the story was worth running. This is the type of coordination and groupthink which has generated the criticism of the Journolist.”
Sarah Palin’s response.
In this little insider scrum we see how O-bot propagandists view morality as a subjective thing that can be manipulated or manufactured.
I despise these people (free lance engineers of the utopian state) because they feel it’s their job to “change” society without a mandate and they will use any level of immorality they can get away with to do it. particularly through media manipulation and Berneys-like consent manufacturing.
This “journolist” is great because it is the start of ‘outing’ the deplorable termites who chew away at the civil underpinning of our culture from relative anonymity, media privilege or camouflage.
There should be more ‘outings’ of these degenerate social engineers in all sectors of public life. Out them and their crimes and try them in the court of public opinion.
Its almost incomprehensive that this bunch of so-called objective journo-lists would coordinate this kind of attack.
It seems that the American media has their share of Heather Malice types in their ranks.
Aside from the obvious bias of those on journolist, do none of these people ever watch TLC’s “I Didn’t know I was Pregnant”?
I will state the obvious – males knowing how far along a pregnant female is? Really? They have special knowledge about this? One of my friends didn’t look pregnant until three weeks before her due date; another looked full term at 5 months. Men know NOTHING about women’s bodies!
And no one can see a cultural divide here? It’s huge and the gap is growing, and while we concern ourselves with its concerns, the real enemy, radical Islam, is on our doorstep and in Europe’s case, the front porch.
Not at all surprised by these revelations of united conspiracy of lefty so-called journos with an agenda.
Hmmm…
Just where did these cliche’s originate:
VWRC
and
Hidden Agenda?
Palin once again demonstrates grace under fire.
Makes one wonder whether Peter Mansbridge and Neil Macdonald were members.
They reported this story two days after it had been debunked.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/03/jonathan-kay-the-cbc-s-appalling-smear-on-sarah-palin.asp
“But then the rumor fell apart. Photos surfaced of Sarah, clearly pregnant, going about her Gubernatorial duties in early 2008. It was also established that Bristol is five months pregnant right now — making the rumor a biological impossibility. “I shouldn’t have dignified this with an email,” my friend reported late on Sunday night. “At this point, I would say that [the Republicans] should let the rumors build up to a fever pitch before they squash them, to maximize the embarrassment.”
Except for a few British outlets, no mainstream media reported on the rumor — even before it had been debunked. The Daily Kos itself shut up about the subject from Monday onwards.
But then, on Tuesday night — two full days after the rumor was killed — CBC’s The National went live with it.”
Was it a Journolist conspiracy to get Katie Couric to ask hard hitting, “gotcha” questions like: “What newspapers do you read?” Who wouldn’t have folded under that line of questioning?
Stan at 11:32 AM: “Makes one wonder whether Peter Mansbridge and Neil Macdonald were members.”
Me, too. CBC has a bureau in Washington, New York, Los Angeles and many, many other places. When and who will do some good investigative journalism on Mother Corpse.
Even if they aren’t members of the Journolist listserv, I’ll bet my bottom dollar they are in collusion with one another about how to smear certain members of the CPC.
Anything that can be spun as fundamentalist Christianity or homophobia is right up there above the virtual fold. At least the CBC’s fans certainly hold fast to these indisputable “truths”.
Oops..VRWC @11:21 am
Good point brick…
Now was Couric looking for Palin’s answer, or the correct answer?
Not a gotcha question at all…mine or Couric’s….
The thing that really strikes me — because who’s really surprised by the level to which these media scum will go in order to discredit someone on the right — is how reasoned, measured, and even charitable, Sarah Palin’s response is. Her last paragraph:
“It’s always darkest before the dawn. My hope, therefore, is that today, marking the anniversary of our nation’s attempt to show respect for our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters with special needs, will also mark the beginning of a new, more respectful discourse among members of our media who at least aspire to be fair and objective.”
Members of the media “who at least aspire to be fair and objective” have just trashed her and her special needs son and she reaches out to acknowledge their aspirations to be “fair and objective.” She answers scorn and contempt with neither, and uses this response to the members of the journolist to move forward.
Palin has class and these media cretins don’t.
I was never a big Palin fan. Liked her, but thought she was just another flash in the pan.
After several years she kinnda grows on you. Like a favorite coat trailered to fit right.
She’s grown under bombardment. Flourish more like it. I can say one thing though. America would never have the decline its under now if She where President.
JMO
The very first “gotcha” question, according to journalist Florence King:
And we read in Genesis that God went walking in the Garden to take the evening air, and he called out to his creation, to Adam and Eve. But they ran and hid from Him. And when he had found them (as we knew He would) He asked them why they had not answered His call and Adam said: Because we were naked and ashamed and hid ourselves. And God said to them: And who hast told thee that thou wast naked?”
“What newspapers do you read?”
Really? Isn’t that kind of an obsolete way of thinking? Years ago, a person could only get so many physical papers, and would read one or more pretty much cover to cover if they cared about current events. That was the *OLDEN DAYS* Today, most informed people read parts of dozens of newspapers every day. The question really was, are you one of us, one of the old elite? The “right sort.”
tim nailed it !!
Another way to ask the “What newspapers do you read” question is “who tells you what to think?”
I never thought Sarah Palin should apologize or regret her answer to that question. Of course the deliberate misquotes, elisions without ellipses, etc, made it pretty hard for her to defend herself. But what really makes it hard, is when you allow your sense of self worth to depend on the admission of another person, like Brick60, they they might be mistaken, when Brick60’s sense of superiority depends on believing that they can never be mistaken.
nails it again !!
tim in Vermont:
“Years ago, a person could only get so many physical papers, and would read one or more pretty much cover to cover if they cared about current events. That was the *OLDEN DAYS* Today, most informed people read parts of dozens of newspapers every day.”
—-> Too bad she didn’t answer as well as you. Instead she said: “All of them.” If you want to make excuses fine, but for most people she came off as a dope.
I don’t think the CBC needs Journolist. They have always been like that but society shifted and they didn’t. I mean their motto ‘Canada lives here’ pretty much covers it. I moved out mom.
I found (and still find) the vicious rumours about Mrs. Palin’s physical person to be the most reprehensible and vile attacks ever in print.
General William Tecumseh Sherman once remarked that if he shot journalists before dawn, there would be news from hell before breakfast. From the eighth circle of hell, you have the journalists would run the muck of Mrs. Palin’s internal organs and children.
I am sure she didn’t expect such a stupid and irrelevant question. By the way, I can see November from my house!
Speedy: “their motto ‘Canada lives here’ pretty much covers it”
===============
No kidding. Pompous self-absorbed a$$holes and they’re scared stiff of Canadians.
Palin felt like Couric was asking do you read in Alaska? Her ‘flippant’ response.
I’d be stumped at the “newspaper” question too, I don’t read them anymore and Sarah Palin is younger than me, so chances are pretty good that she doesn’t read them either and likely hasn’t for years.
Kelly 10:09
“I’d be stumped at the “newspaper” question too, I don’t read them anymore and Sarah Palin is younger than me, so chances are pretty good that she doesn’t read them either and likely hasn’t for years.”
—-> But her answer was that she read “oh, all of ’em.” Can you not see why people laughed at that?
Brick60,
She meant all of the Alaskan papers. What is so ridiculous about that? Of course you weren’t allowed to hear her response, were you?
Tell you what, you let me selectively quote you, leave things out of your sentences without putting ellipses in there, have a comedian parody you, then quote the comedian as if they were your words. Constantly make frivolous ethics charges against you when you don’t have the money to fight them (yes, I know, she has money now) for things like wearing a jacket with an Arctic Cat logo on it in Alaska.
Your real problem with Palin is that she is not of the ruling class elite. Guess what? I like that about her.
BTW, Palin beats Obama in a hypothetical presidential matchup.
Maybe you could tell me what made Obama remotely qualified to be president?
Could you imagine if Obama’s “57 states” clip, his “good to be here in New Pennsylvania” clip, his “uh uh what I mean is uh uh uh if you take the uh uh uh” (it goes on to cringe inducing length) clip were played over and over again? No, you can’t, because you assume that you are always right, that your POV is always right, and that there is no need for you to question your sources of information. It makes you feel smart because your thought process is not cluttered with inconvenient facts that might trouble you. You think we work from the same selection of facts that you do and come to a different conclusion, so we must be stupid. Well, one of us is no doubt acting stupidly.
tim in vermont, of course Obama was NEVER remotely qualified to be president. (I remember seeing a clip of Michelle being interviewed a few years ago, unfortunately I can’t find it, in which she said, ‘he’s not ready’ for the office of president.)
Can you imagine if a white guy in his 40s, with only three years in the Senate and a background as a “community organizer,” put himself in the running for POTUS?
He wouldn’t get out the front door. He’d be laughed off the stage. Everyone would be asking, “Who does he think he is?”
The only thing that got Obama into the White House was affirmative action, all the way down the line, and Chicago thugs.
How the mighty — that would be the U.S. of A. — have fallen, and now we’re all in really big trouble. We live in those times the Chinese proverb talked about.
The only thing that shocks me more than Brad DeLong’s tolerant understanding of Palin’s situation is Klein’s inability to spell “all right.”
The commentary sheds more light on the frothing lunatics and political pragmatists of the bunch than a D&C of Palin’s uterus.
If we discussed the exorbitant costs of Chelsea Clinton’s wedding as evidence of limousine liberal ethics we’d be delving into personal financial matters which are none of our business. Nevertheless it is timely, informative of character, and could have political traction. Why not counter the Royal Wedding with the taint of “Let them eat cake!”