Friday Cable News Links and Open Thread
Chris Matthews is shocked, shocked.
Thursday's numbers: O'Reilly-Hannity-Sarah 1-2-3.
CNN to hire Shuster?!? MSNBC threatens 'punishment'! Shuster's future at MSNBC in doubt. Twitter silence: Day 65.
Rebecca Diamond suspended (via ICN)?
Coop's Scientology exposé. Hotline after dark.
Q&A: Jennifer Griffin, Erin Burnett. Claman w/Stewart.
Palin panned: a canned letdown. The Sarah Palin effect.
Updated through the day. Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in today's open thread. fox news cable
Mike C.
Re: "Palin panned: a canned letdown": Thursdays are a busy night for me with my radio show. So, I haven't checked my DVR recording yet. I'll go easy on Spud, but is it possible that the NYT and WaPo guys wanted to pan the special? I think I know the answer to that.
April 2, 2010, 9:57:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Tony
CNN looking to hire Shuster. To do what, take out the trash?
April 2, 2010, 11:01:57 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
It sounds to me like no one at CNN has ever heard the old adage "when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is to stop digging".
April 2, 2010, 11:07:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
CNN looking to hire Shuster.
See what good things can happen when you go two months without posting something stupid on Twitter?
April 2, 2010, 1:11:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ImNotBlue
Did ya'll (I know Grammie did) yet another fabrication by Mediaite?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/bill-oreilly-obama-converted-to-christianity-by-a-controversial-minister/
Drew Grant, yet again, gets caught making things up... only to get shot down by one of the commentators. Of course, the lefty posters don't really care... facts-shmacks, as long as they can bash O'Reilly.
Anyway... certainly FHWIR material.
April 2, 2010, 12:04:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
If Drew couldn't make stuff up she would be totally silent.
Keeping her on staff in spite of her fact challenged articles, really makes Mediaite look bad!
April 2, 2010, 12:33:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ImNotBlue
Yeah... if it weren't for Drew... they'd only have Colby Hall, Glynnis, Rachel Sklar... and the rest of the staff to make stuff up.
April 2, 2010, 12:49:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
And WPitW material.
April 2, 2010, 12:45:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnnydollar
My guess is no WPitW tonite because Olby will take the night off. Just spec on my part.
April 2, 2010, 12:47:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
He's been working hard, needs a break!
April 2, 2010, 1:10:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
Unfortunately, he was on tonight.
April 2, 2010, 11:02:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
Re: "The Sarah Palin effect": I agree with Matea Gold on this. No matter what Palin does, her move is scrutinized and has an effect. People that disagree with her, like LL Cool J and (apparently) Toby Keith, work hard to get themselves disassociated and succeed. If she says "it's a beautiful day," her detractors will cry "How can she say that?! It's a horrible day! This clueless gun-toting violence-mongering moron bimbo has some nerve preaching to us that it's a beautiful day! ... Good night and good luck. Good evening, Rachel."
April 2, 2010, 12:50:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
And it'll be interesting to see how that Salon lady's Palin hit book does when it comes out later in the year.
April 2, 2010, 12:52:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with gun-toting violence mongering bimbos. In fact, I find my self helplessly attracted to them!
April 2, 2010, 12:58:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
I think G. Gordon Liddy still puts out his annual "Stacked and Packed" calendar you will enjoy!
April 2, 2010, 1:09:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
I have the Tactical Girls 2010 calendar hanging up in my kitchen. I like Stacked and Packed too!
PICTURES
April 2, 2010, 1:17:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Very nice looking calendars!
April 2, 2010, 1:20:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
FF, please tell me that you don't let your mother and grandmother in your kitchen.
April 2, 2010, 2:46:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
That's all good, as long as you expect no more than "gun-toting, violence mongering bimbos" -- want more than that, you'll have to find someone to lust after besides Palin.
April 2, 2010, 1:28:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Guest
Fox Fan
Hey now, don't go insultin my girlfriend!
April 2, 2010, 2:12:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Guest
Considering my real feelings about her, that was damn near a compliment.
April 2, 2010, 3:22:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Yikes Stripes!
Claw retraction, please. It is the Palin "detractors" Mike was making fun of and self-efacing sarcasm on the part of FF adding to the ridiculous enmity foisted upon one conservative woman by the hordes of self-righteous liberal media elite.
April 2, 2010, 3:13:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Guest
No claws . . . nice sexist statement, though, that women can only criticize other women over something catty. And the enmity is far from ridiculous -- I'm a liberal feminist (oh, sorry . . . "liberal media elite") who views Sarah Palin as a direct threat to women and women's issues. And even her family values issues . . . hmmm, needs to practice what she preaches.
April 2, 2010, 3:25:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
So, shun and stifle all conservative women.
April 2, 2010, 3:56:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I'm not sure where you got either "shun" or "stifle" . . . didn't say either.
April 2, 2010, 4:01:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Sara Palin is a direct threat to women and women's issues? OH, please!!
Let me guess. She disagrees with some of the feminists issues.
For this she is a threat? Pretty strong language.
Personally, I don't think she is a threat to anyone.
April 2, 2010, 4:06:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
A conservative female vice presidential candiate is such a bad role model for girls, don't you think?...
April 2, 2010, 5:25:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
She's a threat to women because she stands for many things that run contrary to womens' choice and womens' issues. And she was chosen as a vice-presidential candidate not because she is a "good role model" or because she was supremely qualified, but to lure Hillary voters. Even conservatives have disavowed her qualifications -- it's interesting that everyone is getting their back up. If anyone can provide me with all the ways in which she's good for women -- with the exception of being a veep candidate -- I'd be glad to hear them.
April 2, 2010, 9:24:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Guest
Grammie
I can well understand disagreement with her and/or simply not liking her for any myriad of serious or trivial or just because reasons.
But a "direct threat" to women and women's issues?
That statement, to be considered at all much less considered .
seriously, needs to be fleshed out with things like, oh, what the nature of the threat is and what she has done/said/advocated (other than having a conservative position) to bring her threat to fruition.
April 2, 2010, 5:03:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
Cecelia
The "practice what she preaches" comment is interesting too.
Is Palin a threat to feminism because she bit off too much in the way of a career and wasn't home enough to monitor her daughter's birth control practices?
Oh, do tell...
April 2, 2010, 5:23:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
I am sure all the hyproricy charges against her re family values would fade away if she had put a chastity belt on the girl.
Unless Sarah Palin herself had become a single mother at 17 I don't know how that charge can stick.
April 2, 2010, 6:06:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I absolutely don't blame Sarah Palin for her daughter's pregnancy -- that could happen to any parent, diligent or not. What I do, however, find offensive is the fact that she continues to cling to "abstinence only" for the rest of the nations' young people, as well as a policy on anti-choice that is extreme even for many who are pro-life.
April 2, 2010, 9:25:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Typical.
1. An actual personal insult, having nothing to do with philosophy or policy, is hunky dory; ridiculing not only the intelligence of a conservative woman, but also her sexualality and the sexual motives of her male fans.
2. Then, after criticizing a conservative woman based solely upon her perceived lack of intelligence and her sexuality, falsely accusing me, someone who doesn't share your enlightened perspective, of making a statement I never made.
3. Condescending, superior, snarky, besmirching, final shot, charge of hypocricy: "And even her family values issues . . . hmmm, needs to practice what she preaches." Question-to what preaching are you referring?
April 2, 2010, 5:19:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Abstinence only mainly, ramjet. And her "family values" platform, while her son joins the military to get out of drug problems, her daughter Willow is embroiled in a breaking and entering situation in Alaska, and Bristol had a child out of wedlock. It's time Palin admits that she's wrong about a lot of things.
April 2, 2010, 9:27:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Guest
Cecelia
You can argue that kids should know about birth control and I'd agree with you. You can argue that with today's pressures it's hard for kids not to have sex, and I"d agree with you.
However, to extrapolate what has been an almost universal desire of parents-- that their kids remain abstinent in their teen years, into something that you call anti-feminist in nature, is gilting the grudge to a RIDICULOUS degree.
April 3, 2010, 4:09:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Almost universal desire of parents that their kids remain abstinent? I dispute that notion on its face. I didn't say abstinence only is anti-feminist -- however, considering her own kid was a knocked-up 17-year-old, it seems more than a little disingenuous for her to preach it to the nation. Kind of closing the barn door after the horses are out. I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me what in Palin's records supports women or womens' issues. Being a veep candidate alone isn't good enough. Let's hear specifics . . . like to hear you all put your money where your mouths are.
April 3, 2010, 5:05:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
What exactly is Palin wrong about?
April 3, 2010, 4:12:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Cecilia: Let's hear about those Palin policies on womens' issues that are so beneficial to women.
April 3, 2010, 5:06:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
ramjet, by the way, please quote to me where I made any comments about Palin's sexuality? You did, however -- I was quoting you.
April 2, 2010, 9:35:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
The quote--"That's all good, as long as you expect no more than "gun-toting, violence mongering bimbos" -- want more than that, you'll have to find someone to lust after besides Palin."
bimbo-tramp
lust after-have a strong sexual desire for "You did, however -- I was quoting you."-JD I did not -- no you didn't. Please quote to me where you ever quoted me other than "liberal media elite."I'm inclined to take my response to your 9:27 off forum.
April 2, 2010, 11:21:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
Okay, I saw "Real American Stories." I give it a B+. Sarah Palin doesn't have the best delivery, but that's okay. All the stories were moving, but the most moving to me was the story of Cole Massie and his black lab service dog Ilia.
April 2, 2010, 1:57:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Those last two "Guest" comments were mine . . . .
April 2, 2010, 3:37:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Brutus
Hope Shister gets axed.
More air time for sexy Tessa'.
April 2, 2010, 5:15:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply
keyboard.jockey1@gmail.com
Imus Guest This Morning, Jason Mattera author of "Obama Zombies, How The Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation.
April 2, 2010, 5:55:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Does it surprise anyone that David Shuster is such an ungrateful little twerp that he kicks in the teeth the people who misguidedly gave him a contract and a salary?
April 2, 2010, 6:14:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
Nope.
April 2, 2010, 6:27:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Chris
Olby is on the air live tonight. WPiTW tease: the doctor asking Obama supporters to go else where and Erick Erickson for his recent comment
April 2, 2010, 8:03:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
The Dr. was the subject of Quick Comment #2. Thankfully, no O'Reilly Attacks in WPitW. Phew.
April 3, 2010, 1:02:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I stand corrected, ramjet -- I was actually quoting fox fan. He said, "I'm sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with gun-toting violence mongering bimbos. In fact, I find my self helplessly attracted to them!" I was responding to him. But I have no idea what you meant by my "9:27 off forum" . . . explain.
April 2, 2010, 11:35:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Your 9:25 pm comment that begins, "Abstinence only mainly, ramjet. And her 'family values' platform...."
I said I was inclined to repond to you off forum (privately) as to not stray further and further away from Shuster, Matthews, Olbermann, Rachel, and Ed Schultz, hereafter referred to as the SMORES Regime.
Here's a small example of with what you'll be contending. A pro Obama, Democrat contributor, LA Times reporter's attempt to drive a wedge between John McCain, the social conservatives, and his running mate, Sarah Palin, by portraying Palin as not conservative enough on sex-ed. "Amnesty only" is a red herring, no pun intended.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/06/nation/na-sexed6
April 3, 2010, 1:49:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
SMORES Regime! I absolutely love it, Ramjet!
April 3, 2010, 9:03:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
ramjet, feel free to take it "off forum."
April 3, 2010, 11:54:39 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Julie, you didn't quote me, I quoted Mike C. However, Mike and I were being sarcastic while you were truly being condescending about Palin.
You can't use our sarcasm to back up your genuine insult.
April 3, 2010, 10:56:43 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I can't? It appears that I did, Fox Fan.
April 3, 2010, 11:53:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
If you think you used our sarcasm to back up your genuine insult it's another example of how disingenuous you are being with everyone.
April 3, 2010, 3:40:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Get over it -- I think it's you and this gang who are being disingenuous. With all your big talk about how News Hounds slams people, it's you who can't stand for anyone to disagree with your right-wing talking points.
April 3, 2010, 4:56:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
What right wing talking points?
How are you not being disingenuous by taking sarcasm, pretending it's literal, and then using the literal meaning to substantiate your opinion? That's not substantiation of your point, it's twisting Mike C and my words to mean the opposite of what they meant.
Your smearing everyone here ("this gang") doesn't bode well for your supposed cause of instilling honest debate.
April 3, 2010, 6:19:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnnydollar
I'm offering this as a side observation, because I'm not talking about Julie here but rather how your comment reminds me of something Ellen posted, where she claimed Hannity was boasting that his audience was a bunch of "Tim McVeigh wannabes". A case of taking a sarcastic comment and treating it as if it were intended literally--in Ellen's case bolstered by the careful editing of three words from the quote: "the people, all these Tim McVeigh wannabes here [SO THEY SAY]"
The words in brackets and caps are the ones Ellen conveniently left off. So yeah, in Brodsky's case that's a dishonest tactic for sure.
April 3, 2010, 6:30:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
A "site observation?" Hmmm, sounds like there's a message in there . . . but then, let's not forget that anything can be side by the right as long as it's cloaked in "satire." Nice attempt, though, Johnny.
April 3, 2010, 7:21:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
You meant the opposite? Good to hear that you're really not Palin fans. But aside from that . . . my "smear" of "everyone here" was nothing of the kind. What I said was, "-- I think it's you and this gang who are being disingenuous" . . . and I do. It's fine when you guys want to have a serious debate, but to attack me for not toe'ing your line and recognizing your sarcasm, if that's what it was, is in fact disingenuous. In fact, I'm still waiting for one of you to tell me how Palin is good for women -- I have a hunch that all of this criticism about my response is simply a distraction from the main point, which is that none of you can point to anything she's done that is good for women or womens' issues, because there aren't any.
April 3, 2010, 7:37:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
First it was Keith "Czechoslovakia" Olbermann, now we have Chris "Regime" Matthews. Chris once had talent....no more.
April 3, 2010, 12:55:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Quest
Julie Driscoll<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png"/>
Abstinence only mainly, ramjet. And her "family values" platform, while her son joins the military to get out of drug problems, her daughter Willow is embroiled in a breaking and entering situation in Alaska, and Bristol had a child out of wedlock. It's time Palin admits that she's wrong about a lot of things.
Yesterday, 8:27:25 PM
Disgusting personal attack; a more journalistic approach would be to cite examples of how Palin's family values negatively effected governing Alaska in policy, "trooper-gate," etc. Pissing on Palin's chidren is unethical and inspires blind hate.
– Flag – Delete – Edit – Moderate
April 3, 2010, 1:51:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
I also object to this commandeering of "women", their "goals" and "issues" by you, Julie.
I've been a woman much longer then you have and I not only don't perceive Palin as a "direct threat" to me nor do I disagree with her policies and ideology in any substantial way.
As I said you need to provide specifics, not just some worn out feminist meme, to have your charge that Palin is a "direct threat" be considered at all much less seriously.
Want to try again?
BTW, I also agree with Quest. By your standard for Palin Richard Nixon would be one of the greatest modern Presidents b/c his children were without a hint of scandal!
April 3, 2010, 2:03:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Yes, I'll try again -- Palin has a dismal record on womens' issues. As if her strict stance on anti-choice isn't enough, she voted against funding for a home for unwed mothers in Alaska (can we say hypocrisy), she tried to charge women for their own rape kits in Alaska . . . if you want me to write a book, I can, but there's no way you're ever going to convince me that Sarah Palin has any woman's best interests at heart . . . besides her own, that is.
April 3, 2010, 4:58:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Here's the problem with Palin haters. They assume the worst about those with whom they disagree, are eager to believe whatever is presented that promotes their prejudice, and believe whatever they read at Newshounds.
Sarah Palin did not vote "against funding for a home for unwed mothers in Alaska (can we say hypocrisy).
April 3, 2010, 8:15:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
You're absolutely right, there was not vote -- as Governor, she simply slashed funding. Might want to take a look at Palin's line-item budget here http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html.
April 3, 2010, 8:31:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnnydollar
Well, you aren't exactly correct on that either. She didn't slash funding. In fact the funding increased by 350% (rather than the 450% requested) as part of a multi-year funding program. So the $ spent went up, just not up as much as the legislature wanted in that particular year.
This is a technique that is often used to misrepresent what people do. He cut the funding! When the funding in fact went up. That ain't a cut!
http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-did-not-slash-funds-for-teen-mothers/
I have spoken.
April 3, 2010, 8:38:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I have heard -- and disagree. Legislature says X, Palin reduces it -- explain how this isn't slashing funding? Doesn't matter whether they wanted a higher number, she still slashed it. The technique you just employed is one that is "often used to misrepresent what people do." And, are you to remain silent on Palin's practice of charging rape victims and their insurance companies for rape kits -- until a law was passed stopping her?
April 3, 2010, 8:47:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnnydollar
The so-called 'slashing' of funding was in fact a 350% increase. That's simply a fact. If you think it is honest to say that by approving a 350% increase Palin was "slashing the funding", then we are just on different pages. It such a hound-like argument to make!
The rape kit thing is another misrepresentation. I believe it was a policy that pre-existed Palin's mayorship of Wasilla and was the purview of the Police Chief. Its purpose was to recover the cost from the perpetrator as part of the restitution settlement, or if that failed from the relevant insurance companies. (It wasn't unique to Alaska either.) I don't know that Palin had any say at all for or against this policy, but it's again a bit slippery to claim it was "Palin's practice" when it clearly wasn't her doing.
Just to get ahead of this a little bit, if you're going to come up with a third dubious example I'm done with this ahead of time. Two fallacious arguments in a row is enough for one night. I have other things to attend to and will let someone else take a swing at your next curve ball.
EtA: Reading back what I wrote just above might sound a little supercilious or dismissive, so please don't take it that way. I have my hands full this weekend doing about a dozen other things, all of them annoying. As much as I'd like to chat more here I can't for now. Don't worry, eventually, ah'll be bahck.
April 3, 2010, 9:01:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Palin was in office for four years when the rape kit controversy came to light. Anyone who had womens' best interests at heart would have nipped that practice in the bud on Day One.
April 3, 2010, 9:08:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
By the way, Dollar, let's see your backup for the fact that Palin actually increased funding. Reducing it from $5 million to $3.9 million . . . like to see where the math adds up to an increase.
April 3, 2010, 9:14:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Executive Director of Covenant House Alaska, Deirdre Cronin:
“Despite some press reports to the contrary, our operating budget was not reduced. Our $3.9 million appropriation is directed toward a multi-year capital project and it is our understanding that the state simply opted to phase in its support for this project over several years, rather than all at once in the current budget year.”
In 2008, Covenant House Alaska asked the state for $10 million to assist in the building of a new $22 million facility. The legislature appropriated $5 million, and Governor Palin used her line-item veto to limit the year’s grant INCREASE to $2.6 million (a total grant of of $3.9 million for 2008). Additional money was allocated for this capital expenditure project over the following years, a phased-in grant rather than all the money at once.
April 3, 2010, 9:26:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Guess I'm not taking my toys home yet . . . I saw that same article, ramjet, but overall funding for shelter for unwed teens was still reduced from $5 million to $3.9 million.
April 3, 2010, 10:43:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
JD,
I love ya' like a sister.....well, not exactly....but what is it about “Despite some press reports to the contrary, our operating budget was not reduced," that you don't understand?
April 3, 2010, 11:00:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
ramjet, I know the article you're referencing, and it seems a little cryptic -- "Our $3.9 million appropriation is directed toward a multi-year capital project and it is our understanding that the state simply opted to phase in its support for this project over several years, rather than all at once in the current budget year.” Let's face it -- these guys are relying on state funding; I highly doubt they're gonna bite the hand that feeds 'em. I think that you should maybe read a little further, like EVERY OTHER ARTICLE IN THE FREE WORLD, that says the opposite. And of course, I know you love me like a . . . something.
April 3, 2010, 11:10:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
ramjet: Nice to see you "slumming" over at the Hounds.
April 4, 2010, 3:02:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Yeah, I keep hoping for a change, but alas, to no avail.
My follow up comment was zapped.
Nap time-later.
April 4, 2010, 4:04:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I'll check out why your follow-up comment was zapped.
April 4, 2010, 7:43:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Grammie: By the way, I'm not sure how old you are, but I've been on this earth for about half a century, and there have been very few women in the politica arena whose ignorance and lack of intellectual curiousity has the potential to harm people the way Sarah Palin does.
April 3, 2010, 5:01:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
For every Sarah Palin, there's a Nancy Pelosi.
April 3, 2010, 10:31:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
ramjet, gonna have to shelve the convo for a few -- will be back later if you'd like to pick up the thread.
April 3, 2010, 11:16:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
For years Conservatives have been told that the only reason they (the conservatives) didn't like Hilary Clinton was because she was a strong woman. If the libs feel that way, maybe the reason they hate Sarah Palin is because she is a strong woman.
April 3, 2010, 2:40:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Nah.. they'd hate her if she were weak as a kitten.
They hate her because she's a potential Republican presidential candidate.
April 3, 2010, 4:16:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
The Dems are hoping and praying that the Republicans run Sarah Palin. That would be a gift. We dislike her because she rarely shakes hands with the truth and doesn't represent the majority of women in this country. She isn't intelligent, nor is she strong -- I'll give her conniving and canny, but strong people don't quit as governor halfway through the term because things got too tough.
April 3, 2010, 4:59:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply
LOL!
They hate her because she's a potential Republican presidential candidate.
Oh, PLEASE!
April 3, 2010, 9:54:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ash
Good one on catching Matthews on his fake hypocritical outrage on the word "regime". LOL
April 3, 2010, 4:19:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Taking my toys and going home -- you all have a nice night.
April 3, 2010, 9:22:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
I remember when this thread was about happenings in cable news. Good times.
April 4, 2010, 12:36:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Well, it started with Sarah Palin, who is now cable news.
April 4, 2010, 12:44:17 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Quest
Julie Driscoll<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png"/>
Palin was in office for four years when the rape kit controversy came to light. Anyone who had womens' best interests at heart would have nipped that practice in the bud on Day One.Yesterday, 8:08:45 PM
-Palin was in office four years?
April 4, 2010, 8:25:02 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Quest
Julie Driscoll<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png"/>
Grammie: By the way, I'm not sure how old you are, but I've been on this earth for about half a century, and there have been very few women in the politica arena whose ignorance and lack of intellectual curiousity has the potential to harm people the way Sarah Palin does.
No, she's the google search term that brings traffic to your editor's web site.
April 4, 2010, 8:31:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Quest: I have no idea what all this means, but I'm assuming it's a slam of some sort . . . maybe you want to clarify so we all can be in the know?
April 4, 2010, 3:01:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Quest
Mrs. Driscoll, are you saying you have no idea what your own words mean?
April 4, 2010, 3:35:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Oh, I know what my own words mean, I just don't know what you're talking about.
April 4, 2010, 7:41:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Quest
I commented on your comments, Mrs. Driscoll. I'm sorry if that line of thought confused you. The point I intented to make is that Palin is more of a buzzword than a an actual factor in modern politics, the woman holds no public office does she not? is she really a Judas deserving of hanging or just another former politician trying to make a living as a pundit?
I also attempted to suggest you fact check or clarify yourself on Palin's years of service, as in, were you referring to Palin's four years of service as Mayor of Wasilla or as Governor of Alaska?
April 5, 2010, 12:34:56 AM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Q- do yourself a favor and read this thread beginning from your: -Palin was in office four years?
Yesterday, 8:25:02 AM.At the point Ms. Driscoll asked you to clarify, you could have simply done so and spared some valuable band-width. If you do not understand, just say so, and I'll be happy to clarify it for you.
April 5, 2010, 12:57:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Quest
RJ-Read and have understood, for sevaral days, sir. Just not in business to put my own clarifications in other bandwidth users "mouths." Mrs. Driscoll, as she stated, is fully aware of her own statements. I simply ask her to flesh them out for further scrutiny.
I begrudge her or any other user no malice if she or he rufuses or is otherwise unable to elaborate further on the topic at hand, and I must also say if my remarks are indeed a burden on this website's bandwidth- I ask that the webmaster please delete them at his or her leisure.
April 5, 2010, 2:08:04 AM EDT – Like – Reply
