Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Washington Post Now Not Even Trying To Hide Its Hatred Of Sarah Palin

    Washington Post Now Not Even Trying To Hide Its Hatred Of Sarah Palin

    I was going to write a post about Dana Milbank’s attention-seeking column in The Washington Post about how he supposedly is going to stop writing about or even talking about Sarah Palin for the month of February. 

    The Milbank column really is a window into the mind of mainstream media journalists and pundits.  To them, Palin is like the ticking of an out-of-reach wall clock in the middle of the night; they can’t get her out of their heads but they can’t seem to stop her no matter how many times they throw things at her.

    If this were just another case of Palin Derangement Syndrome, it probably would not be worth a post

    But as documented at Big Journalism (h/t Instapundit) WaPo is using its pages to promote Milbank’s other brilliant idea, a mainstream media boycott of Palin going beyond Milbank’s column.  WaPo has used its Twitter account and has run online polls in support of Milbank’s boycott.

    Rarely do we get such a clear example of the bias of the mainstream media and the extent to which it fears and hates Sarah Palin.

    But since she is “not electable” because of this media bias, we should throw Palin overboard and demand she not run and not be taken seriously by Republican voters, right? 

    Because Dana Milbank and the Editors of The Washington Post get to pick our candidates, right?


    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    When I went to Iowa to hear SP give the Reagan dinner address, I was amused at the level of outrage the MSM felt against her.

    Digging a little deeper, the reason for their outrage sprung from the same complaint I heard over and over again as to why SP shouldn't be taken "seriously" or wasn't a "real" candidate:

    She refused to meet with the "right" people, or do the "right" things that mainstream candidates are expected to do. It was clear she was forging ahead on her own path, outside of the "guidance" of the GOP apparatus and, to the chagrin on the MSM, in a manner that (to them) was unpredictable, and therefore couldn't be managed and controlled. Outrageous!!

    Underneath it all, over and over again, this is what I "heard" from the MSM in Iowa:

    Who does she think she is??

    The reporter from the left-of-center German newspaper, Suddeutsche Zeitung, didn't even take notes. Instead, his paper ran the next day an article about the Reagan dinner which quoted Gibbs and HIS impression about what Palin's attendance meant.

    They want to dismiss her, but can't.

    Love it.

    No O'Donnell redux please!

    Then stop it.

    We don't know if O'Donnell might have been electable without massive media attacks, all the "Smart" RINOs yelling she would fail (from day one…stay classy, guys; anyone notice the funding issues they suddenly have?) for the entire campaign– and golly, she failed!

    Couldn't have ANYTHING with the constant drumbeat that she was horrible from the Republican side, could it?

    When talking electability, remember that the Dems until recently had the only KKK guy in congress. Can we do worse than that?

    Meanwhile, our "smart" guys cut down anyone who isn't a RINO or helpful idiot to the Dems.
    (I still haven't forgiven McCain for his first amendment stupidity, and if he hadn't been going against Obama I wouldn't have voted for him.)

    Chew on this, "smart" guys: the rest of the party, who's been going along with horrible, luke-warm candidates, found out they don't have to. That's how we got O'Donnell.

    So start finding some good conservatives you can stand, plug your nose and try not to slit our throats with your preemptive declarations of failure.

    You think Sarah has no chance? Then start talking about how wonderful she'd be as a VP, or how with all of her interaction around the country she might know who would be a great president this time, and look for someone you CAN stand to go into the running.

    Hint: if your "good" candidate involves cutting out either social or fiscal conservatives, you're doing it wrong.

    thank you for doing the research!

    No O'Donnell redux please!

    I find Miss O'Donnell an agreeable character and I find my views congruent with hers on a number of issues. However, she is a 41 year-old spinster, has revealed only fragments of her employment history, and has a history of neglecting her property and making a hash of her finances.

    Gov. Palin has been married for 22 years to a man she has been affiliated with since high school, has five children, has no significant gaps in her employment history, is diversely skilled with a full and energetic avocational life, and has 12 years under her belt as a public executive. Why would you consider these two women equivalents?

    And, as tomgrey sez . . .

    "I'm not sure Palin is the best choice, and won't be until she runs & wins the primary (if she does), but the irrational hatred of her, now, today, and the need to confront it and counter it, is what this country needs the most over the next year."


    In the first place, her being forced out now in the wake of the calumny from the left would send an unmistakable signal to the craziest of the crazies over there that Republicans can be easily rolled.

    That was one of the primary reasons why many of us disagreed with John Hinderaker.

    The public never would have separated the two issues — the vile and false narrative that claimed she was somehow responsible for the Arizona shootings, coupled with a few Republicans publicly beginning to make calls for her to prematurely exit the race, would have the lefties all gleefully carving big notches on their pea shooters (or, whatever it is that they pull out and play with when they feel artificially emboldened.)

    John did indeed defend her from the false charge, but then way too quickly gave in to entirely speculative long-range conjecture, summarily concluded in his own mind that she could not win, and he posted about it accordingly.

    * * * * *

    By the way, to me, absolutely one of the most fascinating and related "links" to one of these recent posts here, was this one at Commonsense & Wonder dated Saturday, January 22, 2011, and quite simply entitled:

    "There's no Bush so it's become Palin Derangement Syndrome."

    At first, I was a little exasperated when I went there, only to find out that Jerry's entire post consisted of a link to the WaPo column by Dana Milbank. But in a sense, that headline really said it all.

    For the left, to keep their little gremmies focused, there must be a "personification" of the enemy.

    Besides, Obama has now sidled up to way, way to many of the key Bush policies, the vehement opposition to which, incidentally, was the horse he rode into town on!

    So, reason never did and never could suffice to keep those gremmies screeching.

    A few of them obviously sensed that they must have someone to hate. So, the lowest of their opinionists literally jumped up after the AZ shootings and falsely accused Sarah Palin of bloody murder.

    The main stream media is trying to drive Sarah out of contention. R.I.N.O.'s wanting the nomination join in on the carping with friendly "advice" for Sarah–"do this"–or "do that". Dummies that want the media to pick Republican candidates play along so they will sound intelligent join in the chorus–"She can't win". Great! Let's do 4 more years of Obama and everyone is happy playing the loser game. Give me the Happy Warrior, Sarah Palin, she's drives the left nuts.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend