Posted on 03/02/2010 6:59:34 AM PST by Rufus2007
Alice Roosevelt famously said, "If you can't say anything good about someone, sit right here by me." With Roosevelt long gone, you can do the next best thing - get booked on HLN's "The Joy Behar Show."
On the March 1 broadcast of her program, host Joy Behar featured a panel to discuss the tea party movement on its one-year anniversary. But rather than including tea party backers or even impartial observers, Behar talked only with people diametrically opposed to the tea parties and the views their mainstream followers hold, including the openly socialist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, liberal talker Stephanie Miller and Bloomberg's Margaret Carlson. Behar cited a Feb. 17 Wall Street Journal column that was highly critical of the former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and the Tea Parties and pondered how the Democratic Party could take this on.
"Well, you know, it was interesting that Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal wrote this week I quote her, and she said, that the Tea Party is a group of, quote, ‘conspiracy theorists, anti-government zealots, 9/11 truthers and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged,'" Behar said. "Now, do the Dems even have to take on the Tea Party when their own side is attacking them like this?"
...more (w/video)...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Socialists hate people’s uprisings that are of the “wrong” people
So Nancy Pelosi is now a violent racist?
So about 15 people saw this show and 12 were in an airport?
Behar and her pals are a bunch of fisters.
Savage called this woman a fishmonger. SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT.
Stephanie Miller: Her father ran as the GOP VP with Goldwater.
I don’t even know what HLN is, and I don’t think my cable provider carries it. The ratings for this show must be miniscule.
Here is the article that Dorothy Rabinowitz is being quoted from. It is almost 2 years old, and Dorothy Rabinowitz is hardly a conservative (at least from what I read. Here is the article from the Wall Street Journal:
From the day she turned heads at the 2008 Republican Convention—becoming at once an object of fevered controversy—one truth about Sarah Palin stood clear: She was fortunate in her antagonists.
Those in the media, especially, would stoke a mighty sympathy backlash on her behalf. That resentment would feed nicely into the candidate’s role as a voice for the aggrieved: those regular citizens under the heel of the “elites”—that immense, tentacled power whose depredations she has been describing to audiences since her star turn on the McCain ticket.
She showed resilience and not a little backbone throughout, bouncing back after a hapless on-air encounter with CBS’s Katie Couric. And after a daunting encounter with ABC’s Charles Gibson—a civilized presence and one of the most genial of men ever to occupy a news anchor’s chair—now turned into an oaf unable to conceal disdain as he questioned his guest on her capacities for office. That was, to be sure, a pale echo of other spectacles. CNN’s Campbell Brown rocketed, nightly, to impressive levels of semi-hysteria on the subject of Mrs. Palin and her incapacities.
View Full Image
Associated Press
Addressing the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tenn., Feb. 6.
Andrew Sullivan, blogger, would become disseminator-in-chief of the theory that Mrs. Palin could not have been the mother of her youngest child Trig, and was therefore the grandmother. This was, Mr. Sullivan let it be known, a matter of urgent journalistic endeavor.
In a noteworthy message directed to Mrs. Palin in December, Mr. Sullivan allowed that he would like “this line of inquiry to end as soon as possible for the sake of all of us but especially the innocent child”—a child, he explained, who had been caught up in all sorts of secrets he didn’t deserve. A wonderful message indeed, considering that Mr. Sullivan himself was the chief architect of that inquisitory foray, which he pressed unrelentingly.
There’s no underestimating all that Mrs. Palin owes Mr. Sullivan for lines of inquiry like this. That’s not to slight David Letterman’s gross sexual insult, directed at one of the Palin daughters, when she and her mother attended a Yankees baseball game. Political gifts like these, so potent in what they convey about a candidate’s detractors—and to a vast national audience—don’t come along every day.
View other OpinionJournal.com articles:
John Fund: Dick Blumenthal Declares His Independence
Pete du Pont: Nightfall in America
Review & Outlook: The WellPoint Mugging
Sarah Palin isn’t a candidate for office currently but the buzz of expectation surrounds her, none of it exactly vague. She could hardly have been more emphatic, in the last week, about her openness to a presidential run. All the more reason for the intense scrutiny of both her keynote speech to the Tea Party convention a week ago and a subsequent interview with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” Not that it required much scrutiny to see the obvious, and fast: that the Sarah Palin of election year fame has not been much transformed since last we met.
For many who look to her as a presidential hopeful, and a voice for their social views, this can’t be encouraging news.
Mrs. Palin has, it’s clear, enjoyed plenty of adulation, and displays even greater confidence than during that unexpected, bedazzling convention speech. Like Barack Obama, she is at home with adoring crowds.
There are, true, a few tonal changes: the jokes are jokier, the touches of malice heavier, and she revels more obviously than before in the playfulness she brings to her performances. It’s hard to imagine a more assured, better-timed delivery than the one evident in that down-home thrust at Obama supporters—”How’s that hopey-changey thing working out for ya?”—in her Tea Party address.
Mrs. Palin now has, she reports, a team of Washington policy advisers who provide her with daily briefings on domestic and foreign affairs. None of them have, it appears, provided her with intelligence on the impact of certain of her central themes.
On, for instance, the unsavory echoes of her regular references to “the real America” as opposed to those shadowy “elites,” now charged with threats to the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of all real Americans. Neither does she seem to have any idea of how that low soap-box oratory—embracing one kind of American as the real kind, those builders in the towns and cities across America—rings in the ear today. It is not new.
So entrenched a place does this thinking occupy in Mrs. Palin’s bag of references that it can pop up anytime on any subject. Challenged in Mr. Wallace’s interview on alleged irregularities in her husband’s direct contacts with Alaska state officials—on judicial appointments, labor issues, and the like—Mrs. Palin countered that he was her “soul mate,” her “best friend.” The one she could trust while she was off traveling—and he busy working on “issues that meant a lot to him and to people, yes, out there in the real world with steel-toed boots and hard hats trying to build this country.”
Though it hasn’t attracted wide attention, nothing Mrs. Palin has done recently has been worthier of notice than her endorsement of Rand Paul, now running in Kentucky’s GOP senate primary. Dr. Paul, an opthamologist and radical libertarian, holds views on national security and defense that have much in common with those of the far left. Not to mention those of the considerable body of conspiracy theorists, antigovernment zealots, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged who flocked to the presidential candidacy of his father Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas.
Read other articles by Dorothy Rabinowitz. Rand Paul has indicated, in interviews on his policies—these so shrouded in ambiguity as to require expertise of the sort that cracked the Enigma code—that some of his views differ from that of his father. No surprise, that. Ron Paul, it will be remembered, has said repeatedly that the United States had given Osama bin Laden good cause to attack us, which bin Laden himself had explained. Bin Laden, Ron Paul opined, was no doubt “bad” but “he’s not known to be a liar.”
Rand Paul, who offers no opinion on his father’s touching faith in bin Laden’s devotion to truth, says only that his father’s statements have been misunderstood. On one or two things his own views are clear: He stands opposed to the Patriot Act and he wants to cut defense spending.
Asked about her endorsement of this candidate, Mrs. Palin informed Mr. Wallace she was proud of her choice. She admired Rand Paul’s domestic policies, not of course that she agreed with everything he stood for. It does not, apparently, occur to her that everything he stands for—and can vote on—is precisely what comes into play when, and if, he becomes a senator with her help.
Mrs. Palin regularly invokes the name of the most revered of her heroes, Ronald Reagan—among the sunniest stars ever to mount the political stage, and a leader who spoke to all of America. He did not appeal to the aggrieved. Nor did he see in the oratory of grievance, or talk of real Americans and those who were not, a political platform.
Mrs. Palin would do well to look to his model, between study of those daily policy briefings. Her supporters will have to wait a while. At a time when Republican hopes are in the ascendancy, as now (and even when they are not), it’s impossible to imagine the Sarah Palin known to the world today as their leader. It would be well for her to begin pondering the reasons.
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.
9/11 truthers I must have missed something at the tea parties...LOL
Behar is nothing more than your typical liberal coward who surround themselves with people they know will automatically agree with them and their warped views.
Behar the moron still hasn’t figured out that the Tea Party is also made up of independents and democrats. That’s fine with me. Keep bashing them away from the Democratic Party and the Republicans win!
Sorry, I forgot to take out the extra stuff in the margins when I posted the article. :(
my faucet is a pfister
I suspect that Rabinowitz has the issues of abortion and her own religious bigotry on her sleeve when it comes to Palin.
Nearly every NeoCon who eschews Palin does one or the other...or the homosexual issue.
William Kristol being a notable exception.
Mark Levin likes Palin too but he is no NeoCon.
I wonder if she still feels the same? I am going to check for a more recent article.
no kidding...the tolerant peeps don’t tolerate diddly except an echo chamber
Behar can thank her lucky stars that she isn’t running for office and needs voters.
She only has to convince another couple of Liberal jerks that she is a good candidate for a TV show.
God has a special place waiting for the Joy Behar’s of this world.
Behar can thank her lucky stars that she isn’t running for office and needs voters.
She only has to convince another couple of Liberal jerks that she is a good candidate for a TV show.
God has a special place waiting for the Joy Behar’s of this world.
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.