Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Sarah Palin Kills Halibut, Caribou…and Her Credibility?

The fourth episode of TLC’s faux travel-documentary show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” saw some 2.8 million viewers tuning in to see the apparently not so uber-huntress, hunt, shoot and kill a caribou. The mega hyped episode, crafted to showcase Palin at her outdoorsy best, nosedived a sizeable 20% from the previous week. The hunting trip episode also sparked some intended and unintended reactions, raising questions about the Caribou Barbie’s outdoor skills and political manipulations.

What could and should be alarming for the TLC network however, is the show’s see-saw ratings are currently down a precipitous 44% from their 5 million viewer premiere episode. Episode One, which set a TLC network record, was followed by a 40% drop with Week 2’s celebrated “Halibut” episode. Week 3, which featured a family focused episode, timed perfectly for Thanksgiving weekend, rebounded by 17%, viewed by some 3.5 million people.

This wobbly ratings performance suggests the legs for this series may not be as firm and eye-catching as those of the reality show’s star. Perhaps this week’s upcoming episode will provide the Mama Grizzly with a much needed boost, when tabloid superstar Kate Gosselin and her kids, show up for a camping trip and some gun play.

This past episode titled ‘She’s a Great Shot,” showed Palin missing her prey four times before landing the fatal shot and has raised a lot of criticism and controversy, about her claims of being a true frontier-woman.  As reported on The Awl website, many Pro-Palin folks were turned off by the lack of authenticity displayed:

“…knowledgeable hunters would have all recoiled in horror watching Palin immediately place her finger on the trigger of the "hot" Savage 110 as it was handed to her. Keeping one's finger off the trigger until the very moment of the shot is the first lesson any responsible hunter ever learns.”

“But Palin's inexperience with guns is in no way more obvious than when she is handed the rifle and she asks, "Does it kick?" It was an exchange Brad Schlegel took note of, writing on Palin's Face book wall "'does the rifle kick' what kind of a question is that? Doesn't matter if it kicks or not you shoot it the same. That was a girly question momma griz.’"

Adam Buckman of Fancast a raised question about the premise, prior to the hunting  trip:

“The episode…is bound to be talked about as Sarah takes rifle in hand and treks with her dad to a hunting ground near the Arctic Circle in search of caribou. TLC’s description of the episode explains that “Sarah’s freezer is almost empty and winter is approaching. [So] she embarks on an epic caribou hunting trip . . . in search of a caribou for food.” We have to ask: Is that really Sarah Palin’s only option for obtaining sustenance? Hey, Sarah, ever hear of a supermarket?”

Perhaps Sarah was right in declaring inflation is hitting supermarket shoppers a lot harder than Government economists are letting on. Has Glenn Beck been made aware of this?

Buckman in reviewing the episode later, rather humorously observed:

“Sarah even spoke in terms that must have sounded familiar to anthropologists and others who study primitive cultures. Explaining why her husband, Todd, would not be joining her on this excursion, Sarah said, “This year, Todd and I split the hunting and gathering responsibilities.” “Hunting and gathering”?”

All this nonsensical Palin-soap opera drama invariably leads one back a few weeks, to the questions Fox New Analyst Karl Rove raised about Palin’s foray into reality TV, and whether or not he was right. Rove dared to question the wisdom of Palin to appear in a reality-pop culture show, when he spoke with the Daily Telegraph:

“There are high standards that the American people have for it [the presidency] and they require a certain level of gravitas, and they want to look at the candidate and say 'that candidate is doing things that gives me confidence that they are up to the most demanding job in the world’. . . With all due candor, appearing on your own reality show on the Discovery Channel, I am not certain how that fits in the American calculus of 'that helps me see you in the Oval Office’"

The thin skinned and ever responsive Palin, rapidly shot back:

"Now look-it; I'm not in a reality show," she said on Fox News Sunday, ‘I have eight episodes documenting Alaska's resources, what it is that we can contribute to the rest of U.S. to economically and physically secure our union, and my family comes along for the ride because I am family, family is us, and my family comes along on the ride to document these eight episodes for The Learning Channel.... so Karl is wrong right there in calling it a reality show.’"

Well, after four weeks do we know anymore about Alaska, it’s resources, it’s contributions, it’s rich history and future potential, than we did at the outset of this show? Or is this show merely a new marketing method for Palin to remain in the limelight, help promote her newest book and to politically bond with her base?

The NY Daily News, among others, is asking just such questions, especially since finding Palin's penchant for using social media updates, have a premeditated, self-serving air about them. As the NYDN recounts, after the ratings declined in week 2, Palin Tweeted about the slaying of salmon and anticipating The Left's outcry, seemingly to baiting the hook for Lefties, headlines and viewers. Well the ratings went up, so Palin re-upped ante and tweaking for last weeks spot, by appearing to taunt PETA about her upcoming hunting foray. Esquire has also followed up on this storyline and the political angles Palin is shrewdly playing, to keep her ever adoring base firmly clasped in her grasp.

Whether one is hunter or not, believes the need for the Palin's to live off the land or not, thinks this show is reality or not; the big question is:

How long does master media manipulator Sarah Palin think she can milk playing the wronged victim of the "Lame Stream Media," all the while, hunting and feeding off them?

"Hunting and Gathering" indeed.


Anonymous said...

Haha, when ppromoting Mr. Romney fails, we can always use attack Mrs. Palin. Shhhhh, more people support Mrs. Palin than watch her show. Here is another secret: Mr. Romney is short of getting the 270 against Mr. Obama. He is going to have to provide some substance if he is to beat either Mrs. Palin or Mr. Obama.


BOSMAN said...

Bravo Doug!

One of your BEST, If not your BEST!

BOSMAN said...



"He (ROMNEY) is going to have to provide some substance if he is to beat either Mrs. Palin or Mr. Obama."


Providing, "SUBSTANCE". Do Palin supporters know what that means?


Doug NYC GOP said...

OJ seems a little tounge-tied and wobbly fingered this morning. Now he uses my 270 question posed about Palin for Romney.

Hahahahahah as Bos would say.

Seems a nerve has been struck

Doug NYC GOP said...

Thanks Bos!

Doug NYC GOP said...

I was also a little confused about her self-proclaimed "fear of heights'" which she bravely overcame while rock climbing in Episode One and her seeming ease at jumping in out of those micro airplanes and go whizzing all over the state.

Evidently the two phobias are not related.

Anonymous said...

"Now he uses my 270 question posed about Palin for Romney." BINGO! Because, he cannot get there; this kind of silliness won't help him. The bottom line is line the silly defending of mandates backfired on Mr. Romney, so now they have to dig up dirt on their opponent because they have no substance other than promoting mandates. Keep digging your hole a little deeper.


Doug NYC GOP said...

OJ - What are your drinking?

First you have yet to detail Palin's path.

Second, where's the BINGO? What kind of silliness do you refer? Are you even commenting on the right post?

Mitt Romney is not even mentioned in the article.

Seems you are flailing about like one of the halibuts on the Palin fishing boat.

Anonymous said...

It is time for the non serious candidate to step off the stage and allow the LSM to focus on the serious candidates in the race.

Anonymous said...

Honestly...I don't understand the point of this post. No offense Doug but you're kind of all over the place in this article without any real through-line. Is it about the TV shows ratings or about how legitimate of a hunter she is or if it is viable for a POTUS candidate to be on a TV show or if she is in fact a master manipulator of the media? I just don't get what you're getting at?


Anonymous said...

"Mitt Romney is not even mentioned in the article." DING DING DING! We have a winner. Now we do we suppose Mr. Romney is not mentioned?

As for Mrs. Palin path, I'll play your game.
She has a chance at winning the following states:

True, as of now she would only win 20 of those states, but guess what, the election is not for a while. I am sure glad that Republicans did not take your advise and give up in 2009 because they were behind in the polls. She already is winning over more and more Conservatives and Republicans. Independents who want a tax cut will eventually hold their nose and vote the Right Winger from Alaska in the general when the time come. If not, Oh, well, they can just pay higher taxes and stay unemployed.



Doug NYC GOP said...

No offense taken JR.

The point of the post is asking if the show, it's content and Palin's promotinal tactics are hurting Palin's overall credibilty.

In many of these posts, I reference a point I make and provide a link to the supporting material. Part of the process in readine these posts,is to read the linked articles as well.

The over arching storyline is the show is raising doubts in peoples mind about Palin's use of this new media, her everywhere presence and the co-dependant relationship she shares with the media. When the ratings sag, she tickles the leftists, but pushing their hot button issues. When the watch and criticize her, she has a new affrontery to combat.

So what comes first the Chicken or the Egg?

Seriously, do you htink all the media spotlights, focus and back & forth are burnishing her creditentials or lowering her rep in non-fans minds?

Anonymous said...

BTW, 2.8 million viewers is good ratings. Also, why don't you allow anonymous posting at ROS? Finally, I wish you guys didn't cross post these articles at ROS...obviously it's you're right to do so but this site will not gain in popularity if you guys constantly post these articles over there...why come here if they can read all your articles there. I's really "cool" that AG promotes all your stuff but be sure if you annoy'll be gone as quick as you were promoted. Not to's pretty evident that ROS is not doing as well as they hoped since they've reactivated race42012. Just sayin'


Doug NYC GOP said...

OJ says..."Mitt Romney is not even mentioned in the article." DING DING DING! We have a winner. Now we do we suppose Mr. Romney is not mentioned?

Uh..let me venture a guess, since I wrote the piece and would most likely be the person to know.

Now let's see....why didn't I mention Romney?...uh....hmmmm....come on Doug you can do this...geez...think, think, think....what the hell....because the show is titled "Sarah Palin's Alaska?"

Doug NYC GOP said...

JR - I don't allow Anon because every day we all get 20-30 Chinese spam posts in the comment section.

Noelle said...

I have not watched Sarah Palin's Alaska, but who is she kidding when she says it's not "reality TV?" Does she know what "reality TV" is? The more accurate term is "unscripted TV," and it doesn't showcase professional actors. Sarah Palin's Alaska exactly fits the definition.

The more I see of Sarah Palin in the media, the less I support her, especially as a potential presidential candidate. She is all style and flash and no substance.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Well until we get more traffic from ROS we'll keep trying. at least you can comment here, which I appreciate, even though you might think I don't. You might see some of my stuff at R42012 as well as Kavon offered to post there.


Anonymous said...

"Not to's pretty evident that ROS is not doing as well as they hoped since they've reactivated race42012. Just sayin'" There are a variety of reasons, JR as to why this is the case.


Anonymous said...

Doug, I believe most of her "non-fans" can be separated into three groups.

1. democrats

2. political junkies who already have a leg in the race but would vote for her in the general if she wins the nomination but also will not admit to that in any poll taken.

3. the average, american voter who pays little, if any, attention to politics this far from an election. they might read snippets or headlines about palin and they might, superficially, believe what they read but they are potential votes when they get to know the real palin that the media doesn't want them to know.

i know you have your bets hedged on a different candidate but you must realize that palin has endured an almost impossible negative campaign against her...some are faults of her own...resigning the governorship, others a biased media that does not want her to be the next president. think about how much better she is doing in polls now then she was a year ago. when people get to know the real palin, during the primaries and debates...her numbers will get even better. this is what's amazing...the media and blogosphere keeps asking who the republican dark horse candidate will be in 2012 and the answer is one of the top 3 possible contenders today.


Anonymous said...

Noelle, with all due respect, you're wrong about what reality TV is. Reality TV is based upon a notion that drama will be created when cameras film average, everyday people in their average, everyday lives. Palin's Alaska has no such is more a documentary or "travel-logue" of Alaska and the resources it offers. Palin and her family are basically hosts and narrators of the "travel-logue." Sure it has hints of reality based television but it is not true, reality TV without the drama.


Anonymous said...

Doug, I get why you're doing the cross-posting but I would think you'd be better served to write smaller posts about different topics for ROS instead of just copying the same posts to both sites. Just my opinion and advice...take it or leave it...what do I know. I also think you should get some contributors that represent Palin and Huckabee and Gingrich more. It's great that this site is basically Romney vs. Palin but the Romney contributors overshadow the Palin contributor. I understand the site is made up of pro-Romney people but you guys are gonna limit your traffic by only catering to one candidate. Again JMO...


Anonymous said...

OJ, you don't have to tell me. ROS is known as Rinosphere by a lot of circles in the blogosphere. I think I coined the phrase Romneysphere though. Also, I don't know if you've noticed but not many other sites link to ROS...there's a reason for that. It's a shame because Kavon always seemed like a stand-up guy...unfortunately he doesn't seem to be running the daily activities at the site and has refused to address the concerns of his members. When R408 was around there was a great influence of the entire spectrum of the big tent and the conversations were much better and more civil.


Doug NYC GOP said...

JR - Am I sure Bos would love to other contributors - I know he reached out to Donna T and some others. No doubt if you would like to contribute, you surely would be most welcomed.

Regarding the content of the show and your comments to Noelle, I really think the build up and defense by Palin PRIOR to the show's airing, comes up woefully short. That's why I included the Rove opinion and my link to the first episode review I wrote. The focus of the show is on Palin & Family set against a backdrop of Alaska. For all we are learning about Alaska, which is minimal, this could set against spectacular locale. To suggest they are merely "narrators" is taking a really narrow view.

Gotta run - check back later.

Noelle said...

With all due respect JR, you are wrong about Reality TV. Is throwing a bunch of people on an island and competing in various challenges, then voting each other off the island "everyday people in their average, everyday lives?" Or how about celebrities learning to ballroom dance with professional dancers and voting for your favorite. Is that "everyday people in their average, everyday lives?" Or maybe hopeful singers competing to become the next superstar singer. Is that "everyday people in their average, everyday lives?" Reality TV is putting non-professional actors in a contrived situation that is interesting to someone, and filming and editing that footage. I have nothing against Sarah Palin's Alaska, and even though I haven't watched it, I find the footage that I have seen in clips to be beautiful. One place I hope to someday visit is Alaska. But that being said, Palin promoting Alaska, as well as herself, on her TV show, or her numerous appearances on FOX, or her Facebook posts, or her tweets, are doing nothing to give substance to her persona.

Doug NYC GOP said...

JR - I opened the thread at ROS for Anons should you want to go there,

Damn the Spammers!

Anonymous said...

Doug, c'mon? I might agree with you if they had an entire episode that wasn't framed by some activity that Alaska has to it recreational or industrial. I would agree that the partial purpose of the show is to reintroduce the "real" Sarah Palin to many people who might otherwise have had their minds made up but to say it is solely a reality show is wrong...if it is merely a reality show, then i hope to see some future episodes with some fist-pumping and GTL.


Anonymous said...

Well said JR, I have never met Kavon in person, but I have met a few other FPPer over there. I have also exchanged e-mails with him. I have heard your term Romney-shpere. Haha, this might be funny coming from an anti-Romneyite, but I actually do not think their problem was being too Pro-Romney per se. Although there were a few nasty nutbars in the Romney camp, the two biggest jerks were actually not Romneyites (haha, although they'd vote for him if they had to.) To be sure, there were certain members of the management team (apart from Kavon himself) that had no use for middle America and yes they were arrogant RINOs who had no interest in promoting fiscal responsibility per se. I actually liked a few of the old Romneyites like MarK, Martha, Hamaca and Jerald to name a few, but as time went on, things fell apart. The long and the short of it is that they were out of touch with mainstream Conservatism, but I guess that is no different than the RNC itself. Tommy Boy and I sometings comment on another Conservative site. Ironically, the heated debates on that site had little to do with the various camps per se. I actually got into a nasty fight with a Thunian, RINO was one of the nicer names he called me, haha. Well hang in there JR.


Anonymous said...

Noelle, I didn't mean to offend you, you do raise some interesting points but you're still a little off base. For instance, technically, American Idol and Dancing with the Stars is not reality television...they're talent competitions. But you are correct when you say that reality tv is putting non-professional actors(average, everyday people) in contrived create real drama. However, I will concede that reality television is not always their average, everyday lives.

Unfortunately for your argument, you've never watched Sarah Palin's Alaska so I'm not entirely sure how you could judge the merits of the show or the content or premise of the show...having never watched it?


Anonymous said...

Also seems you want to see more substance from Palin...believe me it's there and if you have any inclination to educate yourself on could watch her 2006 Alaska Gubernatorial debates, or read her speech on foreign policy or her Hong Kong speech or her many Facebook posts that have led the crusade against President Obama's agenda for the last two years.

There's an old saying that goes something like...the wise seeks knowledge, the unwise knows everything.

Anonymous said...

That last anon was me.


Anonymous said...

"Also seems you want to see more substance from Palin...believe me it's there and if you have any inclination to educate yourself on her" Well said JR, I guess some of these people figure that education ends once you get your Harvard Degree. Don't count on them educating themselves on Palinism, they are content to just get their view of Mrs. Palin from the LSM.


Anonymous said...

I agree with Noelle.

Tracey said...

I can see Palin from my house.

1. Palin is a Quitter.

2. She refuses to do tough interviews. In other words, she can't stand the heat so she will stay out of the kitchen.

3. She did not know that North Korea is NOT an ally. She did not know that South Korea existed. She claims to see Russia from her house and even if she could that does not make her an expert on foreign matters which is of course her implication in that remark.

3.She makes up words and misquotes sources to make her point. Translation; she lies to her readers.

4. She gets in cat fights with LSM. Then relishes in the attention the LSM gives her. A true love hate relationship.

5. She makes polarizing remarks and then she cries foul when she is criticized.

6. She is very vague and trite in her responses to questions on Fox News. When ask about the immigration problem and what would she do she said,"Whatever it takes..."

7.Her book failed to address many critical political issues facing our country yet she managed to devote some space to give her opinion about American Idol.

8.She is dividing the republican party. She is not working to bring the party together. She is threatening to take her supporters and go home if the republican does not do things her way.

9. She showed lack of judgment in several endorsements she made in the primary. She took on the roll of Queen maker and as a result we lost the SENATE.

10. She is promoting herself for financial gain.

Nate Gunderson said...

I resent your comment. Just because someone does not have the same view of Palin as you, you assume that they need to be educated as to her finer points. You also mock an Ivy League education, as if this is some sort of disqualification, and assume people's opinions come only from the "LSM".

I don't watch TV news or even read the "LSM". I don't have a college degree at all, but in fact I'm a high-school drop-out (later got my GED).

I read blogs mainly, including a daily visit to C4P. I listen to Rush, Beck, Hannity, and occasionally Ingraham, Medved and Miller. I read Sarah Palin's Facebook posts. I listened/watched her recent interviews on numerous talk/news programs. I intend to read her new book in the coming months.

I defy all your descriptions of what you classify as an anti-Palinite. Besides being a little weary of hearing her name dozens of times a day, I have no problem with Sarah Palin. I do however reject the fact that she is the best qualified to run for President. And if she is running for President I take the stand that her methods are rather unorthodox, but she is free to choose the course she wants. I don't think hers is a winning game-plan. I welcome her to the primary process though, she will bring strength to the system.

What doesn't serve Palin or her supporters well is their pseudo-class warfare of mocking those with Harvard degrees, and assuming that people who don't like her are not "educated".

Noelle said...

I'm not offended. As for my argument, the quality of Sarah Palin's Alaska is not at issue. I've never watched it, I don't know how good it is. My argument is that I have yet to see in her public life, since she quit her post as governor, any attempt to take substantial issues and address them with real solutions. She's great at platitudes, and generally I agree with her beliefs, but she is not, absolutely NOT, doing anything to make herself be taken seriously. She is acting like a celebrity, and no matter how much I may like her celebrity persona, it is not what I want in the person taking on the most challenging job in the world, the President of the United States. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I think she is politically immature. I think that neither she nor her family is prepared for the onslaught of media attention, especially when it involves criticism.

Noelle said...

@Tracey, I would defend Sarah Palin where your third point is concerned. "3. She did not know that North Korea is NOT an ally. She did not know that South Korea existed. She claims to see Russia from her house and even if she could that does not make her an expert on foreign matters which is of course her implication in that remark."

She misspoke regarding North Korea, and corrected herself. Anybody can misspeak. She did not claim that she could see Russia from her house. That was Tina Fey portraying Sarah Palin on SNL. Funny, but Sarah didn't say that.

Regarding the rest of your points, I agree with you.

Noelle said...

OJ, If this comment "Well said JR, I guess some of these people figure that education ends once you get your Harvard Degree. Don't count on them educating themselves on Palinism, they are content to just get their view of Mrs. Palin from the LSM" was directed at me, I'd like to educate you.

I am not Harvard educated, although I can see how you might have thought I was because I sound so intelligent in my posts. :) I am a stay-at-home Mom. I have 2 very young children, so I can't spend unlimited time reading every word written by or about Palin. I generally get my news from FOX and talk radio. Is that LSM enough for you? I like that Palin is in the media, and speaking for me. Like I said before, generally I agree with her. But she could be doing a lot better job. She comes across as politically immature. She, or maybe it's just her supporters, are much to quick to take offense at any opportunity, and she does not handle it well.

I'm glad McCain selected her as his VP. I think she added a much needed boost of enthusiasm to McCain's lethargic campaign. Since then, however, I have found her path to be unsatisfactory for my taste in who I want to support for president.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Nice job Noelle, well said @6:11pm, very close to my own opinion.

Bill589 said...

She doesn’t whine or play the victim.
She attacks the press to reform it.

Even conservatives(?) on this site attack her more than anyone else.

On your mind much? So much for the RINO argument that she's irrelevant.

Revolution 2010 said...


HaHaHaHa as Bosman would say.

How's the Romney image being portrayed over at C4P lately?

Tracey said...


In defense of point #3, Palin may not have actually said "I can see Russia from my house." But what she did say still implied that because she lived in close proximity to Russia, she was an expert on foreign policy.

Here is the actual transcript of the Charlie Gibson interview.

GIBSON: "What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?"

PALIN: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

OK, so now it is not as bad as it once seemed. It is true that when Sarah Palin campaigned with John McCain in the presidential election of 2008, she was so lacking in foreign policy experience and know-how that she kept falling into traps and holes of her own making.

She had cited proximity of Russia to the United States as a reason that she, as governor of Alaska, knew more about Russia than many Washington insiders.

Right Wingnut said...

Romney occasionally gets a brief mention on C4P. It usually results in a few chuckles, but nothing like I see on Mitt Romney Central(Chat box).

Scroll up to the 3:51 post for an example of typical MRC rhetoric.

Right Wingnut said...

I also think you should get some contributors that represent Palin and Huckabee and Gingrich more. It's great that this site is basically Romney vs. Palin but the Romney contributors overshadow the Palin contributor. I understand the site is made up of pro-Romney people but you guys are gonna limit your traffic by only catering to one candidate. Again JMO...--JR

I agree. I appreciate the help of JR, Ohio Joe, and Bill, but another Palin contributer or two would help. I've linked to a few of my RS posts at C4P. The response has generally been positive, but they probably get turned off by the overwhelming Romney bias (and Palin bashing) on the site. A little balance would help. I don't mind posting daily, but I'll be the first to admit that my writing skill aren't that great.

Anonymous said...


There is nothing wrong with your posts other than the content.

I rate the posts here 500% better than at ROS and 1000% more interesting.

The only time ROS gets any traffic lately is when they get a i-2 punch from Bos and Doug.

Between the 2 of them, they get more comments there than all the front pagers combined.

Think what would happen if they stopped cross posting there?


Doug NYC GOP said...


Thanks for the kind words. Are suggesting Bos and I withold posting at ROS so we can extract some cashola?

You can be our agent/broker!

Doug NYC GOP said...

RWN - In order to help boost interest and traffic, lets post one non-Romney-Palin item for each one we do post. So if I post a Romeny article, I have to post on another topic; taxes, Obama, etc.

They'll be plenty of 2012 stuff to write about come spring - I think we can broaden our horizons.

Tracey said...

Noelle regarding Palin North Korea Gaffe, it is just one of many Gaffes. Why should I dismiss that mistake? She makes them all the time and she continues to solidify in my mind that she is severely lacking foreign policy expertise.

I had a real problem with the fact that she used the word ALSO. Here is the transcript:

PALIN "We're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do," Palin told Beck.

It's unclear whether she referenced the correct Korea and simply misused the term "sanction" -- which, as stated, means to approve or validate, or if she meant to say South Korea, the U.S. ally, in reference to any actions that nation may take in retaliation to past or future attacks from the North.

One might even have missed that gaffe, had she not said just seconds later: "Obviously, we gotta stand with our North Korean allies."

Upon hearing that, Beck immediately butted-in to correct the possible 2012 Republican presidential candidate, quickly interjecting, "South Korea."

Palin replied with an almost reflexive, "yeah," but corrected herself in the next remark: "And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes."

I just can't trust she really understands what is going on in the world.

I wish she would leave the stage and allow the serious candidates to take over.

Anonymous said...

I resent your comment. Just because someone does not have the same view of Palin as you, you assume that they need to be educated as to her finer points. You also mock an Ivy League education, as if this is some sort of disqualification, and assume people's opinions come only from the "LSM"."

Then I guess we are even, Nate. We have heard it countless times from your camp:
'why these country bumpkins are too stupid to appreciate Mitt and all he's done'
'Those guys, might have a degree, but they got from a degree mill.'
'They never traveled the world, they barely English.'
'The only reason they have time to go to Tea Parties is because they are a bunch of unemployed White Trash on Food stamps.'
Not to mention 'why doesn't Trig just die.'

While it is true that certainly you, Nate and most of your friends have never made these quotes. These are the kinds of ignorant and arrogant things we have to listen too. Here is a clue, these insulting quotes do not have merit. The so-called cheap shots that I take at Mr. Romney and his camp are relatively mild. I do not mind people who are educated (I have a few degrees myself.) What I mind is the fact some characters thinking that they are superior (especially in light of a questionable track record.) So in short, I do not regret that I struck a nerve.


Illinoisguy said...

OJ, do you have a name associated with any of those comments you attribute to Romney supporters? As you know, I support Mitt Romney very strongly, and when it look at each of those comments I immediately think of TROLL trying to create dissention between Palin and Romney camps".

I don't know of even one true Romney commenter who would use the phrases you point to. So, by sighting them ans acting as if they come from actual Romney people are purposely or not creating the very discord you are talking about. Most of us can see them for what they are, despicable.

Ann said...


You've shown that the real victims here are those that fall for Palin's media manipulations.

Anonymous said...

This endless class warfare over whether one has a college degree or not is mindless! It is true that Sarah Palin has higher support among those who have not obtained a college education. Rush and Beck both absolutely adore her. Most of the time, she doesn't make sense to me. I--fortunately for me, unfortunately according to others on this site--have a college degree, although not an Ivy-league one. My daughter is being recruited by Harvard, Yale, and Columbia, though, so maybe that counts. Maybe we are some of the RINOS that keep getting referred to here.

I prefer Mitt Romney over Palin. I have had my eye on him since he saved the Winter Olympics, and I have even been impressed by his accomplishments. Say what you will, the man has ACCOMPLISHED things in his life, unlike the current President. I would also like to point out that Mitt received his Bachelor's Degree from a University in flyover country known as BYU. Although BYU has developed prominence, I imagine that in the early 1970's it wasn't particularly prominent in any way. It is also quite a conservative University, as Universities go. I see people call Mitt supporters RINOs and I have a hard time envisioning Utah, a great Mitt stronghold, as RINOS. They aren't midwesterners or southerners, that's for sure. Still, they are pretty conservative.

I do not hate Sarah Palin, but the fact remains that she was a Mayor and a Governor, but she quit after two years. There is yet a great deal to be understood about Sarah and what she is actually capable of accomplishing. At this point, she doesn't really connect with me, but I can and did vote for her. In fact, what she says sometimes does not make sense to me, period. Maybe I'll have an epiphany and will suddenly understand her, or maybe she'll gain experience talking to people and will begin to make sense to all of us instead of just to her loyal followers. We can hope for the day.


Nate Gunderson said...

Right Wingnut said...
"Romney occasionally gets a brief mention on C4P. It usually results in a few chuckles, but nothing like I see on Mitt Romney Central(Chat box).
Scroll up to the 3:51 post for an example of typical MRC rhetoric."

ARE YOU SERIOUS? They openly and viciously scorn Romney on the front page of C4P - things I would never let out writers say about Palin. You are comparing that to what someone said on our Chatbox where anyone can get on and speak their mind? We don't sit on the chatbox and moderate it all day. Don't call what is said on the chatbox "typical MRC rhetoric". I've never allowed it on the FP. C4P not only allows it but promotes it. I've never heard a kind word from a C4P-er about Romney.

Right Wingnut said...


First of all, let me say that you seem like a class act. My comment was not directed at you. There was another post at the exact same time. Scroll up and look at it. That type of garbage is commonplace on your chatbox. Every lie and manufactured scandel gets repeated by several of your members. You may not be saying it yourself, but you and the other contributers see it each and every time, and it's right there for all to see--visible on your front page. In addition, many of your members often display an aura of superiority to non-Romney backers. that can be quite the turnoff to the casual observer. It's no wonder that Mitt isn't popular among Palin or Huckabee supporters.

As for C4P, I acknowledge that they take an occasional shot at Romney, but could you please provide an example of a time when Romney was "visiously scorned" on the front page? You seem to be exaggerating your point for effect. Some C4P members have actually asked certain front pagers to tone it down. For example, they don't refer to anyone as a "hack" anymore. It's fairly harmless stuff for the most part.

Tracey said...

RWN You said "That type of garbage is commonplace on your chatbox. Every lie and manufactured scandel gets repeated by several of your members.

I did not post lies. Palin frequently denies her mistakes but that does not mean they are not true. One thing is for sure ... she is NOT instilling confidence Americans that she is fit to be POTUS.

You act as if you take the high road. You post unfavorable things about Romney all the time.

Sarah Palin concerns me. I will continue to POINT OUT HER PERCEIVED WEAKNESSES. I am sure you will be doing the same when it comes to Romney.

As a matter of fact, give me 10 perceived weaknesses of GMR. I will be happy to respond to all ten of them. Yes, even the one about mandates. That tired "meme"

I would love to hear your response to the 10 things I mentioned about Palin. You have read her book. Enlighten me. From what I have heard she has not given the public anything of substance. Still wondering what she would do on many issues. Vague answers just won't do.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself. You are acting like Palin. When the rhetoric gets tough you start crying... "THAT IS NOT FAIR."
But it is fair. You do it to Romney.

Nate G. said...

RWN - Fairly harmless stuff? I love how you dismiss what C4P writes (therefore promotes) on their front page, and how you're upset with MRC for not moderating their daily rolling chat well enough.

From C4P fp:
-reference to Mitt as ineffectual wind
-"his incessant flip-floppery"
-repeatedly call him the Mittster
-repeatedly mock him for "endorsing candidates that have already won"
-he has earned the endorsement of "fools"
-people who support him are "tone-deaf establishment Republicans"
-repeatedly perpetuate the mantra that Romney says it's "his turn", when he has never implied such, only the media has
-he's a transparent "opportunistic flip-flopper"
-those who support him are part of "the stupid party"
-repeatedly promote the idea that Romney has a "woman problem"
-he's one of the good ol' boys
-he's the "finger-to-the-wind" candidate
-repeatedly calls him Mittens (they even had Mittens as one of their category labels
-says he's part of the "Cocktail Party"
-accuse him of "dirty tricks"
-Romney guys "don't care about this country"
-mock him as a "soggy cucumber and mayonnaise sandwich" eater
-"Mitt Romney has become, literally, a parody of himself."
-they use the quote "Romney's supporters were involved in certain behind-the-scenes maneuvers as part of an effort to stack the deck in Romney's favor"
-they mock Mitt's tweet: "Now is the time for Republicans to rally behind their nominee, Christine O'Donnell. She ran an impressive campaign. I believe it is important we support her so we can win back the U.S. Senate this fall."
-claim they "expose Republican chameleon Mitt Romney"
-call him the GOP version of John Kerry
-call him a sexist
-say he is best suited for the gutter
-mock him for putting a dog on his car (27 years ago)
-call him a "self-aggrandizing narcissist" who is not worth the money paid to consultants on his payroll
-accuse him of pathetic, sexist, and classist attacks
-Romney "cowers in the shadows"
-promote idea that he is "silly and immature"
-they promote a strongly anti-Romney news article as "marvelous" and tell people to read its entirety multiple time
-Doug Brady's intro to one of his posts: "Mitt Romney, the plastic flip-flopping establishment Republican whose Ted Kennedy inspired government takeover of health care in Massachusetts served as the blueprint for Obamacare"
-Romney hides in the tall grass
-repeatedly accuse him of paying off Evangelicals for Mitt to a be a front group for him (I personally know this is not true)
-accuse him of being in the yacht club
-his 2008 campaign "was the most lackluster in memory"
-"Romney is a classic finger-to-the-wind politician with no core values who will change his tune as often as he changes his audience."
-refers to Mitt supporters as Mittwits

So, that wraps up what is spoken about Mitt on ONLY THE FIRST PAGE of the "Mitt Romney" search label. Remarkably enough I couldn't find a single complimentary remark about him on the whole page. Does that sound like honest or objective commentary to you. Do you still claim I'm exaggerating?

Though we don't sing Palin's praises all day long at MRC, I can assure you that I have complimentary of her on a number of occasions. When I hear people tearing into Palin on our site I generally advise them that they probably shouldn't as we may very need and want the support of her followers one day.

Right Wingnut said...


I read worse than that this site and yours on a daily basis.

Again, you seem like a class act. I only wish some of your cohorts would follow suit.

Aaron G. said...


Haha... I've seen mentions of MRC on other websites along these lines: "Those Gunderson boys run a tight ship" or "They (MRC contributors) are a class act".

We've made an honest effort in reinforcing to our authors that not only do we not publish hit pieces on Sarah Palin, we rarely do it on ANY fellow GOP members. Our goal is to keep our focus on building our candidate and to highlight the flaws of our real opponent: Obama.

These ground rules will no doubt change once candidates start to hop in the ring; but I assure you we will remain tactful and civil.

You cannot be honest with yourself if you claim that C4P has similar standards for their front page contributors. They seek to tear down all allies at no costs, often having the exact opposite effect on would-be supporters, who like me, actually like and respect Gov. Palin. In all honesty, C4P does a disservice to their candidate -- this coming from someone who happily voted for Gov. Palin and would do so again.

Doug NYC GOP said...


You've read worse about Palin on this site, than what Nate posted?

I'd like some examples please. I think the main posts about Pain, while critical (mixed with sly humor) can be tough, they have not attacked her personally.

Right Wingnut said...


This very post is an example of the yellow journalism that has plagued Palin over the past year. Did you watch the show? Did you catch the part about the scope being off target? Did you see when her dad tested it out later in the show, and verified that the scope was off? If so, why would you quote those who's number one goal is to harm her credibilility? Could it be that you share the same goal?

By the way, I haven't heard much about her two kill shots into the charging bear target from the past show. Even kate said she would be hanging with Sarah for protection from the bears after witnessing it.

This is what I'm talking about. You people constantly dredge up the talking points of the left and anonymous sources to try to make your case. You undoubtedly know that most of it is BS, but that seems to be of little concern to you. Tracey's post is an even more blatent example:

3. She did not know that North Korea is NOT an ally. She did not know that South Korea existed. She claims to see Russia from her house and even if she could that does not make her an expert on foreign matters which is of course her implication in that remark.

Nate G. said...

You read stuff worse than that one a daily basis on MRC??? I call BS. I'm there, I read the stuff, I delete some stuff, but the level of ferociousness is just not the same. Isn't nearly the same.

Regardless, personal attacks on the front page are much worse than complaints from commenter - whether they are valid or not.

FP at C4P gets read by at least 40,000 people a month. The chat box on MRC is read by a couple hundred at the most.

But I'm done with this debate. If you still don't agree after I've listed the many examples at C4P than your blinders are on too tight and we are at an impass.