Skip to comments.How Sarah Palin changed the game (barf alert)
Posted on 03/13/2012 7:14:38 AM PDT by lowbridge
The movie portrays Palin as an ignoramus. She did not know that Queen Elizabeth does not run the British government, and she did not know that North and South Korea are different countries. She seemed not to have heard of the Federal Reserve. She called Joe Biden OBiden, and she thought America went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein, not Al Qaeda, had attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.
At the same time, she was a liar. In the movie, she was called exactly that by McCains campaign chief, Steve Schmidt, who came to realize that one of Palins great talents was to deny the truth. When confronted, she simply shuts down and sulks off.
Palin objects to this characterization, but the movie has been endorsed by too many of Palins top campaign aides to put its veracity in doubt.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Consider why the Bible advises not to throw pearls before swine. Sarah is a pearl.
I’m pretty sure nobody has endorsed the movie — Some of them said positive things about the BOOK, but everybody I’ve seen comment has been to say the movie lied about things, and was not faithful to the book or to the truth.
And that includes the people from the McCain camp, who have gone so far as to issue press releases contradicting some of the things the movie added that weren’t in the book.
Remember folks, “The Undefeated” is on the Reelz channel for those of you with cable or Fios, and I believe I saw a link to a live datastream of it at some point so it might be made available on the internet. It is a much more accurate potrayal of events than this movie.
Which would be Schmidt, Wallace and Anonymous. Let the little misogynist believe this stuff if it helps him get through the day.
Amazing how the liberals continue to be scared to death over a woman that is not running for president. They never let up with their lies and character assassination against her. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder and the continued irrational attacks on Governor Sarah Palin prove it.
The 57+1 states of the Union...
Hawaii, here in Asia...
A Navy Corpseman....
The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries....
The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.....
“Why can't I just eat my waffle?” —after being asked a foreign policy question by a reporter while visiting a diner in Pennsylvania.
No, of course such a dofus should not ever become POTUS... oops! - Barack Obama did win the Presidency and far from being an intellectual giant the quotes show him to be a mental midget.
(PS: Cannot register or post on the NYDailyNews site, but if anyone can, please feel free to use the above.)
Correct on all counts.
Joe Biden was 76th out of 85 in his class at Syracuse Law School. Case closed.
Don't call my bluff!!!
:-) :-) :-)
I had missed that one. I really would like to play poker with him.
Yeah, Schmidt and Wallace, who have profited handsomely for their backstabbing.
Good God! Man. You do realize that that means there are exactly 9 people who may be more stupid that Slo-Joe!
I didn't think that was possible!!
Why is this not slander against Sarah Palin? Can HBO portray anyone they want anyway they like against that persons wishes? Can this mistaken writer call someone a liar in print without evidence and just because he wants to?
Are slanderous attacks such as this one no longer actionable in court? Is there no such thing as slander or libel anymore? At what dividing point does the law distinguish between a public person and a private person?
Rubio is as unqualified as Barry Sorreto was. Absolutely not ready for prime time. Neither is Willard the liberal, who’s total experience in government was four failed years governing from the left in Mass. This crap about him being a job creator is BS. Of the three viable candidates in the race, by far the smartest, most experienced and most conservative is Newt Gingrich. He’s the one the liberals and the GOP establishment hate and that is the reason he was crucified in the media when he took the lead over Willard. You’ll notice the establishment boys and leftists on MSNBC never mention Newt anymore. That’s because they think he has been neutralized as a serious challenger to their favorite son Willard the liberal.
Also, claiming to be in Texas when he was reading his teleprompter in Kansas....
To win a libel lawsuit, a public official or public figure must not only prove that something published about them was documentably false but also that it was published with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. Those are standards which are almost impossible to meet except in the most egregious cases.
There is nothing I've read about the movie that comes close to giving grounds for a successful libel lawsuit. Sarah Palin is clearly a “public figure” under the definitions of New York Times v Sullivan and subsequent libel case law, and furthermore, the movie involves actions she took while serving as governor of a state who was running for vice-president.
Basically that means she's fair game. I think Sarah Palin is a tough woman and is quite capable of handling it, though she probably wishes she could do serious harm to the filmmakers.
The First Amendment exists for a reason.
As conservatives, we want to be able to freely criticize not only elected officials like President Barack Obama and Sen. Harry Reid but also liberal public figures like George Soros, Ariana Huffington, and lots of others. Political disagreements should be settled in the court of public opinion, not in the court of law.
God forbid that we ever have to deal with liberals suing us for libel and forcing us to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend ourselves when we say bad things about people we don't like.
14 posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:34:34 AM by Resettozero: “Why is this not slander against Sarah Palin? Can HBO portray anyone they want anyway they like against that persons wishes? Can this mistaken writer call someone a liar in print without evidence and just because he wants to? Are slanderous attacks such as this one no longer actionable in court? Is there no such thing as slander or libel anymore? At what dividing point does the law distinguish between a public person and a private person?Sincerely.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had harsh words for the HBO film “Game Change” as well the book it was based on, saying Sunday that he had no plans to watch a movie that he believes disparages his former running mate Sarah Palin.
“Of course I’m not going to watch it,” McCain told host Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. “Why there continues to be such an assault on a fine and decent person, Sarah Palin ... They continue to disparage and attack her person. I admire and respect her, I’m proud of our campaign and I’m humbled by the fact that I was able to give her [the Republican vice-presidential nomination].”
Although the book “Game Change” covered all aspects of the 2008 presidential race, the film version focuses on the inner workings of the McCain-Palin campaign. McCain accused authors John Heilemann and Mark Halperin of painting an unfair portrait of the campaign, and he said that the movie would inevitably do the same.
McCain flatly denied that one scene in “Game Change” ever happened. In the film, when adviser Steve Schmidt tells McCain that a boring white male won’t adequately spice up the GOP ticket, McCain responds, “So find me a woman.”
Asked whether that happened, McCain said, “Of course not.”
Schmidt himself has defended “Game Change” and been critical of his own decisions on the McCain-Palin campaign. “I regret playing a part in a process that yielded someone on the ticket who was not prepared to be president,” Schmidt recently told the Washington Post, speaking of former Alaska Gov. Palin. Schmidt said that the film is “the true story” of what happened over the course of ten weeks.
In response to Schmidt, McCain simply said, “I regret that he would make such a comment.”
“I’m not going to watch it,” McCain said on “Fox News Sunday.” “It’s based on a book thats completely biased and with unattributed quotes,” he added,, referring to the “Game Change” book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.
Conservative radio host Mark Levin weighed in on Game Change the far left HBO hit piece on Sarah Palin. Levin described former staffers Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt as evil two-faced cowards.
There is nothing worse than having a couple of two-faced cowards working for you No sense of duty, no sense of loyalty, no sense at all Theyre a-holes. Make sure you tell your children you dont ever want to grow up like these two.
McCain vet Charlie Black: Nicolle Wallace’s Palin claim ‘bizarre’
Former Bush White House official Nicolle Wallace drew a swift rebuke from one of her former McCain campaign colleagues Wednesday, for claiming in an interview that the 2008 McCain team discussed whether or not it was appropriate for Sarah Palin to be sworn in as vice president.
Wallace, who worked with the McCain-Palin ticket in the general election, was promoting a novel she wrote an interview with Time when she said: There certainly were discussions not for long because of the arc the campaign took but certainly there were discussions about whether, if they were to win, it would be appropriate to be sworn in.
That assertion is not true and bizarre, said Charlie Black, a veteran of Republican presidential politics who was one of McCains closest advisers in the 2008 race.
No such discussions ever happened and I have confirmed that with Sen. McCain, Black told POLITICO. In fact, Sen. McCain and most of his senior staff from the campaign admire Sarah Palin and appreciate her contribution to the ticket. The McCains and the Palins are close friends.
Of Wallace, Black said: She wrote a book of fiction and her comment to Time magazine is fiction.
Its bizarre that Nicolle would say that when, constitutionally, you couldnt prevent the woman from being sworn in if she was elected vice president, he continued. Its a bizarre way to sell books.
Thanks for your reasoned response which is also my understanding of the way slander and libel laws are being intrepreted.
Accordingly, “under the definitions of New York Times v Sullivan and subsequent libel case law,” no slander or libel laws can be applied against anyone who speaks lies against any “public figure”, whoever that may be.
Please don’t miss my point that I am referring to out-and-out lies and not just a criticism or joke about a public person; lies that are provably wrong and are harmful, especially to a public person The way things are, I believe, is not the way the First Amendment was intended to be upheld.
Also, you mention the flip side of the coin: What about the left suing the right for libel. Well, I always tell the provable truth about anyone and everyone and expect to have legal recourse when I (my name) am libeled or slandered. I post on FR; what keeps me from being called a “public person”? A case could be made for it. Thus, there’s no real legal protection for most Americans against libel or slander, unless it involves a corporation with a buzillion dollars and retained lawyers to push it.
Liberals already sue anyone anytime they like. This must be evened out somehow.
Oh, he quotes and relies on Steve Schmidt. That's all we need to know -- relying on a guy who's a known hazard to other people's back health, and a prominent exponent of Mitt Romney's Children of the Corn.
You really didn't need the barf tag. All you need to do is put "Richard Cohen" in the title line, and we'll all recognize the cat vomit.
Under current conditions, to win a libel lawsuit is very difficult but not impossible. Most of the time people who win a lawsuit are either major cases involving multimillion dollar lawsuits or private figures about whom a newspaper recklessly screwed up a story. For example, one of my former newspapers almost printed the wrong mug shot by switching a minor criminal's photo with an accused murderer of very similar names, and if that hadn't been caught at the last minute we all would have been in REALLY deep kimchi.
My job got saved because I kept a page proof that ordinarily would have been thrown away which proved that the page, as I had approved it, did **NOT** have the wrong photo and the photo got switched later in the process. I learned (to the undying frustration of my family and subsequent editors since then) never, ever, ever, to throw **ANYTHING** away that might have the remotest possibility of being needed later.
That's a concrete example of what it means to avoid “reckless disregard for the truth.” Newspapers, when they screw up (and they all do, since there's no way to print tens of thousands of words every day without mistakes) need to be able to prove that they had a process in place to prevent the screwup.
Documenting lack of actual malice is more complicated and it doesn't apply to the sort of case we're discussing. It's more of a situation excusing unintentional screwups for which a newspaper can't be shown to have intended any deliberate harm and in fact printed a quick correction or retraction or clarification to fix the problem.
McCain accused authors John Heilemann and Mark Halperin of painting an unfair portrait of the campaign, and he said that the movie would inevitably do the same.
Check into Mark Halperin's family connections, his "red diapers", and his enmeshment in the Clinton political apparatus, and you'll recognize a political hit piece of the first water.
Read up on his whole malodorous family, beginning with his traitorous father who was up to his eyes in the "Pentagon Papers" hit on American policy and Richard Nixon, and you will get a stinkload of their ideologically-committed nastiness.
Your responses are valuable to me because they come from a newspaperman who has first-hand experience. Again, thank you.
I see things differently though. It’s been more than a decade since I’ve written a news report for any broadcast medium. All I know is that, even then in the ‘90s and especially from the ‘60s through the ‘80s, I could never have gotten away with writing or saying “So-and-so is a liar” without dealing with terminal consequences if anyone noticed and complained.
That fact that the writer of the article in this thread wrote what he wrote proves to me his intent was to harm Palin if not her family members. He didn’t just (unintentionally) mix up her picture with Julianne Moore’s.
He was born in 1965 in Bethesda, Maryland, the red-diaper baby of hard-Left-connected controversial foreign policy specialist Morton Halperin. This fact reveals an entire Left-spin universe in which Mark grew up exposed to his fathers comrades and radical ideas.
Morton Halperin today is Senior Vice President of the left-wing Center for American Progress (CAP) and Director of the Open Society Policy Center established by eccentric billionaire international financier George Soros.
In 1966, a year after his son Mark was born, Halperin during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urged that the United States should diplomatically recognize the Communist Peoples Republic of China and seek its admission to the United Nations
In February 1993, President Bill Clintons administration announced the appointment of Morton Halperin to the new position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and Peacekeeping. Halperin withdrew his name from consideration in January 1994, his nomination stalled by both Republican and Democrat U.S. Senators who refused to consent to so radical a nominee.
Halperin was for many reasons too controversial to win Senate confirmation. He had advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament of the United States, publication of most U.S. military secrets, and an end of all clandestine activities by the U.S. against the Soviet Union and its colony in Communist Cuba.
Morton Halperin during the mid-1970s befriended Philip Agee, a former-CIA-agent-turned-Communist who publicly identified hundreds of purported American Central Intelligence Agency agents. At least one of these agents, Athens station chief Richard Welch, was murdered shortly thereafter. Halperin flew to Europe to help Agee find safe haven after Great Britain expelled him. In the U.S., Halperin opposed legislation to punish the outing of U.S. undercover agents as Agee had done. Halperin has described the CIA as the subverter of everybody elses freedom.
Halperin, as Director of the Washington, D.C. office of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in this era also defended the right of The Progressive magazine to publish secret details it had obtained of how to make an atomic bomb.
In 1976, Halperin accused the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of murdering Black Panther leader Fred Hampton.
Morton Halperin in February 2002 became Director of the Open Society Policy Center and has worked closely ever since with its creator, eccentric billionaire international financier George Soros, who committed tens of millions of dollars in 2004 to a variety of efforts to defeat President Bush. One of these Soros-funded political efforts is the Center for American Progress (CAP), launched in summer 2003, one of the Seven Sisters pillars of the lefts Shadow Government.
CAP is also known as the official Hillary Clinton think tank, described by Horowitz and Poe as a platform designed to highlight Hillarys policies and to enhance her prestige as a potential presidential candidate.”
According to a March 1, 2004 report by Robert Dreyfuss in The Nation, Halperin and Soros handpicked the President of CAP, former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta. Morton Halperin today is Senior Vice President, second-in-command at CAP, where his son David is a Special Adviser on Campus Outreach. During the years 1997-2000, David Halperin worked as a speechwriter for President Clinton and the National Security Council. Among the Clinton White House email records that mysteriously disappeared when sought by investigators were ones to and from David Halperin, some of which might have involved his father.
During the 1992 campaign, Halperin violated journalistic ethics by providing to Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos a copy ABC had obtained of Mr. Clintons youthful I loathe the military letter written to his ROTC commander, according to Tom Rosenstiels book about ABC Strange Bedfellows. Halperin thereby gave candidate Clinton days of advance warning to prepare his response before facing reporters questions about this letter Clinton had no reason to believe still existed.
Having helped Clinton win, Mark Halperin then covered the President-elects transition to power and was assigned to White House coverage for the first two years of the Clinton administration.
A Left-Wing Plant at ABC News
Cliff Kincaid November 1, 2004
Writing in Front Page magazine, Lowell Ponte charged that Mark Halperin of ABC News is the son of veteran left-winger Morton Halperin, the side-kick of billionaire leftist George Soros. Ponte calls him the red-diaper baby of hard-Left-connected controversial foreign policy specialist Morton Halperin. Thats significant, Ponte noted, because Mark Halperin wrote the infamous memo telling the media to go hard on George Bush during the final weeks of the campaign
The Soros connection also helps explain why so many in the media have gone easy on Kerrys connection to Soros, who is spending millions of dollars to put the Democrat in the White House. So easy in fact that Kerry has never been asked to explain whether he agrees with the Soros agenda of legalizing hard drugs and turning America into a version of Needle Park.
We emailed Halperins political unit at ABC News for his response to Pontes charge. Pontes story has been up on the Internet for several days without a denial of the family connection. Mark Halperin, of course, is not responsible for who his father is, but this connection is definitely relevant in this presidential campaign season because of Morton Halperins role with the fat cat Soros. Writing in The Nation magazine, Robert Dreyfuss revealed that Morton Halperin began discussions with Soros in 2002 about creating a new far-left think tank. Halperin, then head of the Soros Open Society Institute, brought former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta into the discussions. Podesta was made president of what became the Center for American Progress and Halperin became Senior Vice President.
Heilemann Falsely Claims GOP Becoming ‘Whiter,’ ‘More Blue Collar’ and ‘Less Well-Educated’
By Noel Sheppard | March 03, 2012
On HBO’s Real Time Friday, New York magazine’s John Heilemann trotted out the same old tired and completely false cliches about the GOP that Americans are going to hear ad nauseum for the next eight months.
“The Republican Party is becoming just truly is becoming a whiter, more blue collar, more populist, less well-educated party” (video follows with transcript and commentary):
New York Mag’s John Heilemann Makes Three-Way Gay Joke About Santorum
By Brad Wilmouth | January 05, 2012 | 09:28
Appearing as a guest on Wednesday’s The Colbert Report on Comedy Central, New York magazine’s John Heilemann - also an MSNBC analyst and formerly of The New Yorker - made a gay joke about GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum as he described the competitive election in Iowa
Heilemann: Obama’s ‘Hope’ in 2008 to be Replaced by ‘Fear’ of Republicans in 2012
By Noel Sheppard | July 24, 2011
Forget about 2008’s “Hope and Change” mantra.
New York magazine’s John Heilemann said on this weekend’s “Chris Matthews Show” Barack Obama’s message in 2012 will all be about “fear” of the Republican candidate, and the President will spend $500 million on negative attack ads against his opponent to instill it (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Andrea Mitchell, John Heilemann Scold GOP 2012 Hopefuls for Disagreeing with Obama’s Israel Policy
By Alex Fitzsimmons | May 20, 2011
In lockstep with Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who scolded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “please don’t speak to my president that way,” MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell cautioned of the “political pitfalls” for Republican presidential candidates who dared to challenge Barack Obama’s speech on the Middle East.
On the May 20 edition of “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” NBC’s chief foreign affairs correspondent warned against criticizing the Democratic commander-in-chief and bewailed the “angry reception” he’s received over his desire to see Israel surrender territory it acquired in the six-day Middle East war of 1967.
NY Mag’s Heilemann: Obama’s Got More Talent In His Little Finger Than All GOP Candidates
By Noel Sheppard | April 02, 2011
The liberal media are on a full-court press to make the entire GOP presidential candidate field look hapless and unelectable.
Doing his part Friday was New York magazine’s John Heilemann who on “The Chris Matthews Show” said the Obama campaign thinks their guy has “more talent in his little finger than any of these Republicans” (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Sincere thanks, from those of us who missed these first time around. Going to dig into the links now.
That is the very clarifying article I was looking for.
And people will never see this stuff, because (as Sarah fans are justly lamenting) the LSM has all of these sources walled off now, thanks to the JournoList and its successor, and to certain unaccountable actions Matt Drudge has taken in downplaying hot stories about the dragons of the Obama political machine.
In the Sixties, a couple of relevant songs referred to "MacArthur Park" and to "Itchycoo Park". I once read an article about the stoners and junkies of Switzerland, who had their little park where they hung out. They were so few compared to the whole country, but spectacles like that defame an entire nation. We, of course, had Washington Square in New York (which I saw in 1971, with the druggies enjoying themselves), and I think it was Golden Gate Park in San Francisco that served the same function on the Left Coast. I didn't go there when I passed through San Francisco 22 years later.