Disingenuous Palin-Haters Insult American People

Sunday, November 28, 2010

An article in the ADN today has this sentence beneath it: "Paul Jenkins is editor of the Anchorage Daily Planet." I suggest replacing that with this: "Paul Jenkins is a delusional Palin-hater." Despite his weak argument to the contrary, that's exactly what he is. And though we're most grateful for his definition of the term "hater," I really don't think any of us is in need of his help. We know one when we see one--and he fits the description.

In his article, designed to attack Bristol Palin for speaking out against people who have come against Governor Palin and herself, Jenkins expects the reader to believe that the obvious intense hatred for the Palin family is not hatred at all but healthy disagreement. The problem with that is none of us has just emerged from under a rock, totally oblivious to the irrational insane anti-Palin party that has been going on non-stop for two years.

Jenkins writes:

Bristol stumbled into the finals dead last.

"There's lots of haters out there that are waiting for me to fail," she said.

At the wrenching end of the weeks-long contest that captured America's imagination, she did fail. Bristol Palin finished a miserable third behind real talent on a TV show too many of us watched on the off chance her paranoid, delusional, wack-job mom would be, well, a paranoid, delusional wack-job.

[..]

It seems to me that "hater," used by the lovely Sarah P. as a blunt instrument on people she has issues with, is an ugly word. In fact, in the "Somalian-to-Norwegian Dictionary and Cooking Guide," a hater is defined as somebody who disagrees or questions Sarah Palin about virtually anything -- or who does not like lutefisk. There is even a picture of her and a pot of fish. I'm not kidding.

To the Palins, using the term immunizes them from criticism. You disagree, you're a hater; your opinion, your point of view, means nothing. That's too bad. Hiding behind "hater" is a childish, transparent and fearful self-defense gambit that signals intellectual weakness and a lack of backbone; an inability to defend an idea or principle. It insulates its user to end discourse. It forecloses on compromise, and labeling someone a "hater" is the first step in dismissing and, eventually, dehumanizing them. It's not me; it's you.

First things first. It is you, Paul.

Second, if Jenkins expects us to concede that "dead last" in a "DWTS" three-placement Finals is synonymous with failure, he's out of his mind and probably has never seriously competed for anything in his life. Enough said on that.

Now, Jenkins seeks to prove that there really aren't Palin-haters out there--just respectful, healthy people who express disagreement with the Palins. One need not look any further, however, than his own words to prove him wrong, as if there was any doubt. Referring to Governor Palin as a "paranoid, delusional, wack-job" won't get him very far in supporting his claims. He attributes the term "childish" to them while simultaneously choosing to write an article attacking a 20 year old mom who wanted nothing other than to dance. He accuses her mother of possessing "a lack of backbone," she who daily is insulted, harassed, and threatened by--dare I say?--haters like this character.

Stating that Governor Palin, her daughter, or their supporters, for that matter, throw the hater term out there all willy-nilly to innocent, well-meaning, honorable people who simply don't agree with them is disingenuous at best. No, it's a flat-out lie and an insult to everyone's intelligence. As a child, the elders in my life always said, "No one likes a liar." I have grown up to despise lies almost more than anything. I'd have more respect for this guy if he simply came right out and identified himself as a hater and was proud of it, rather than trying to convince the public that the Palins are imagining the onslaught of shameless filth they deal with on a regular basis.

Twisted people twist reality to suit their own agendas. Paul Jenkins asserts that the Palin family is imagining hate where none exists. Right. So we're all stupid, I guess. Has he never seen this depiction of the Governor as Hitler:



Or heard about death wishes from politicians after Ted Stevens died in a plane crash.

Or read about death threats against her.

Or been informed about the allegations of racism.

Or been briefed on the numerous attacks against her son, Trig, found on blogs to which I will not link.

The list really is endless, and surely Paul Jenkins knows it. His article is a seriously weak attempt to convince readers that what they know to be true isn't true at all. That's a key characteristic of a hater. They work overtime to make other people think they're crazy, when in fact they're the ones suffering derangement--in this case Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Another example of such was debunked by Andrew Breitbart today. Recently Governor Palin cooked the media's goose for blowing up a simple North/South Korea slip of the tongue. On Facebook she demonstrated that Barack Obama has made a plethora of gaffes, yet reporters never find it necessary to make a media frenzy out of it. Media Matters reported that the Governor was making a big deal out of nothing, that the media largely ignored this. However, count on Breitbart to break down the real deal:

Democratic Party front group Media Matters for America has published yet another attack on Republican Sarah Palin. This one a dishonest portrayal of media coverage of her recent slip of the tongue regarding the crisis on the Korean peninsula.

[...]

In a Thanksgiving Day message posted Nov. 25th on her Facebook page, Palin opened her post with a tongue in cheek send-up of President Barack Obama in which no fewer than ten of his verbal gaffes and misstatements were included and sourced.

[...]

Boehlert smears Palin, describing her as being nuts in some manner or form, “self-obsessed” and imagining things.

“Fox News’ Sarah Palin is now so consumed with every real or imagined media wrong against her that she’s to the point where she’s attacking the press for stuff they don’t even do.”

Even though Palin’s slip was reported in headlined stories by American and international wire services, as well as major news sites across America and around the globe, Boehlert claims “major American newspaper(s) did not turn the Palin/North Korea gaffe into a “major political headline,” did not treat it as news, and did not even mention it as news when it occurred.” Boehlert changes Palin’s assertion of major political headlines to major newspaper headlines, a sleight of hand that allows Boehlert to use Nexis to list major American news outlets that supposedly did not report on Palin’s slip:

“New York Times; Wall Street Journal; Los Angeles Times; Washington Post; New York Post; Houston Chronicle; Philadelphia Inquirer; Newsday; Denver Post; Arizona Republic; Minneapolis Star Tribune; Dallas Morning News; Cleveland Plain Dealer; Seattle Times; Chicago Sun-Times”

Boehlert also claims broadcast media did not cover Palin’s slip:

“What other news outlets ignored Palin’s verbal gaffe when it occurred? All three major networks–ABC, CBS, and NBC–as well as CNN, Fox News, PBS and NPR.”

However, Boehlert fails to note the story exploded on major news sites on the Web within hours of Palin’s slip.

Boehlert also conveniently fails to note that the faux scandal was initiated by his fellow Media Matters writer Oliver Willis.

The piece goes on to name the numerous media outlets that reported on the slip of the tongue--and not just in America either. It was reported in China, Korea, New Zealand, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, and Australia. Read Andrew Breitbart's full piece on this here.

Media Matters and Paul Jenkins could learn a thing or two about the American people. We are not sheep led by people so consumed with their anti-Palin agenda that we'll believe everything they tell us. We're not that crazy. Instead, we're smart enough to trust what we see with our own eyes and what we hear with our own ears. And what we've been seeing and hearing are dishonest, disingenuous, and disgusting displays of Palin-hatred. No amount of twisting the facts will work to dull us to what is evident to all clear-headed people. We know better, for the truth is so obvious. Pointing fingers at the Palins is only an attempt to divert our attention from the truth. In fact, it actually shows these haters to be the childish, intellectually weak souls Jenkins tries to make the Palins out to be.

(h/t Fay)

1 comments:

Wraith November 28, 2010 at 8:50 PM  

To the Obamanoids, using the term immunizes them from criticism. You disagree, you're a racist; your opinion, your point of view, means nothing. That's too bad. Hiding behind "racist" is a childish, transparent and fearful self-defense gambit that signals intellectual weakness and a lack of backbone; an inability to defend an idea or principle. It insulates its user to end discourse. It forecloses on compromise, and labeling someone a "racist" is the first step in dismissing and, eventually, dehumanizing them. It's not me; it's you.

Yeah...I knew that sounded familiar. Fixed that for him.

Post a Comment

  © Blogger template Noblarum by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP