Posted on 09/15/2008 4:25:30 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
The CBS MarketWatch columnist, Jon Friedman, has posted a column that appears to have been composed in an alternate universe in an entirely different space/time continuum than ours. It is a universe in which the media somehow built up Sarah Palin and in which the public will also become bored with her. Does this sound like our own universe? Of course not. In our universe, the real one, the media has been tearing down Sarah Palin from day one.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Didn't this dolt listen to her speech? She doesn't really care about the media, and no, the media didn't "make" her. Like Rush Limbaugh says, don't let the media make you--and they can't break you.
The writer who said this is dreaming. Palin stands or falls on her own accord, and the media won't affect my opinion. And I'm not alone, there are millions like me.
I can tell you this, since she joined the ticket, I've given substantially more money to the McCain campaign/RNC...and I've put a yard sign up, put on my bumper sticker, and will be contacting my local office to work for the Republican party this campaign...
I honestly was going to sit this election out as far as giving and volunteering...but now, I am ready to work.
Nope, it's Obama-logic ... at right angles to the rest of the universe.
Kinda like being raised in Hawaii and going to an Ivy league school. Then moving to the south side of Chicago for a 20K job a year.
Who in the hell would think of doing THAT??
Who in the hell would think of doing THAT??
The Manchurian Candidate.
They just don't understand.
ML/NJ
Exactly. That's what they said about Ronald Reagan.
Palin's popularity is based on her lifetime of experiences (varied they are), and her substantive achievements as a governor.
While she could flub during the campaign, these basic factors are etched in stone. Her buzz derives from the unlikelihood of someone with her background getting a nod for the VP slot. But the background is established.
Obama, by contrast, is a chimera. His background is mostly unknown - he has minimal accomplishments, and his symbolic value is based on shallow factors - speechifying, and the color of his skin. Empty suit, flash in the pan, leftist prop.
I had to check to make sure this wasn’t a spoof, but it’s intended to be serious. I guess it makes sense too, at least to those looking at the world through O-O’bama glasses. The polls tell us the truth on whether voters are tired of Governor Palin. It’s like the comment that “Look out, Michael Phelps. Your time is coming, too,” - we saw how that worked out in Phelps’ Olympic races. He looked really tired (but that was after taking first place in every race he entered). I imagine the Palin/Phelps comparison will turn out to be the most accurate part of the whole article.
“She is not from Washington. She’s real. She has run small businesses. She’s a mom with a job. She understands what people’s lives are really like.”
“In other words, she’s like most of us.”
And that is what will be the lefts undoing, as they attack her by extenaion they are attacking them.
We will take it to heart.
Can only feel sorry for those who depend on these low-life alphabet networks for news. Figured if that was ALL I heard; I might be one of the unwitting gullible supporting this 'O'bomination. (At the least, it gives one an understanding as to why there is SO much gullibility re this stealth candidate.)
Do not know how these Media 'wonks/wonkettes' can sleep at night. . .or; per species mandate; perhaps they just sleep during the day.
I've seen this guy's columns before and he's a left wing sissy. He has previously bashed Ann Coulter and defended Bill Clinton in his column. He is not the least bit objective.
People don’t use CBS Marketwatch for news of to know what some pinhead thinks about Gov. Palin. This is just noise.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
It's one thing to be bored, it's quite another to be sick and tired of him and his media pimps!!
Charles Krauthammer begs to differ: “Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration—and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. He asked Palin, ‘Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?’ She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, ‘In what respect, Charlie?’ Sensing his ‘gotcha’ moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine ‘is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.’
Wrong.
I know something about the subject because... I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, ‘The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,’ I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ This ‘with us or against us’ policy regarding terror... became the essence of the Bush doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world... Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know—while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and ‘sounding like an impatient teacher,’ as the [New York] Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.”
CBS news goes down before Palin does.
“NY - the gap has closed to 5 points!!”
Excellent news!
Once Bristol is married and has had her baby and is settled in, we can run HER against the HildaBeast and put a stake through that heart and save New York once and for all, LOL!
Or maybe the returning war-hero son when he comes back from Iraq? Either will do. ;)
I tell you what people are SICK and tired of. It’s the attempted media “coronation” with just a formality of an election ensconcing Obama as President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.