Tuesday, 23 September 2008

The attacks on Sarah Palin

I have been disgusted but not surprised by the intensity of the attacks on Sarah Palin. The Democrats and their tame media fellow-travellers have too much invested in Barack Obama to allow anyone to take victory away from them. The attacks on Sarah Palin have been more vehement than any political smear campaign that I have seen before and most have supposed that they have come from fringe groups. My Pet Jawa has evidence that seems to show that this is not the case and that in fact "false rumors and outright lies about Sarah Palin and John McCain being spread on the internet are being orchestrated by political partisans", including people very close to Barack Obama. Since this story will receive zero coverage in the MSM, you owe it to yourself to find out the truth.


Merge Divide said...

"Since this story will receive zero coverage in the MSM, you owe it to yourself to find out the truth."

What story are you talking about? That Sarah palin is heavily critcized, and that you don't like it? How is that a story for the national media?

I can see the headline now:

"Blogger Likes Palin; Does Not Like Anyone Criticizing Her."

Maybe you can get FOX or "newsbusters" to cover this breaking news... they might love it. They are looking for anything right now to obscure actual issues.

Not a sheep said...

I see from one of your blogs that you are happy to perpetrate the type of attacks on Sarah Palin that were categorised as "false rumors and outright lies". I presume that you are one of those people who think that such attacks are justified for the sake of getting Barack Obama elected.

The MSM, prompted by their allies in the Democratic party, have chosen to attack Sarah Palin for anything they can dig up or make up whilst ignoring the real stories about Barack Obama's unsuitability for office. Which story do you think is more important: Sarah Palin moving a sun bed into her offices or Barack Obama associating with terrorists, dodgy financiers, race hucksters etc.?

If you cannot be bothered to find out the truth, or don't care what the truth is, then I suggest you stick to the playpen blogs that peddle the lies that you believe in and leave blogs that do tell the truth to people capable of seeing what is happening in US politics.

Merge Divide said...

First of all, you accuse me of being

"happy to perpetrate the type of attacks on Sarah Palin that were categorised as "false rumors and outright lies"

I challenge you to give an actual example from my blog. Usually when someone tries to make a point like this, they provide examples. Of course that will require actually reading it... so I doubt you'll be motivated enough to try.

It's funny that you find all examinations of her record and stated positions "attacks". Do you honestly think that most people are going to be satisfied voting for a candidate because they are a woman, or because they are "hot", or "a breath of fresh air". Some voters expect analysis to go a little deeper than that. Palin is fortunate that there are plenty of superficial and one-issue voters out there.

"Which story do you think is more important: Sarah Palin moving a sun bed into her offices or Barack Obama associating with terrorists, dodgy financiers, race hucksters etc.?"

I think the Palin sun bed story is just as ridiculous as the "Barack and the terrorists" meme. I don't think you want to talk about these politicians' associations. Believe me, you will come out on the losing end.... Ed Kalnins, Ted Stevens, Frank Murkowski, etc.- those are Palin's MENTORS... not merely "associates".

Do you really think your post was substantial?

Not a sheep said...

You seem happy to push the great scandal that is "Troopergate" without any worries. If you equate that with Barack Obama's association with a convicted terrorist then you really should get hold of a moral compass.

It is odd how rather than address Barack Obama's friends and associates you would rather throw some dirt at Sarah Palin. That tactic is one that I am familiar with in British elections as well, it appears to be the weapon of choice for the Labour party in the UK as well as the Democrats in America.

I chose the word "associate", if you had investigated the facts more closely than you might want to, then you would see that William Ayers was more than an associate of Barack Obama's - I was being conservative in my espousal of my opinions.

Please don't get me started on what I think of a man who listened to the type of sermon that Jeremiah Wright gave and only decided to leave the church when the sermon's content was exposed.

If you don't like the truth, don't visit this blog. If you do choose to visit this blog at least do me the courtesy of being rather better informed than you appear.

Merge Divide said...

Yes, and it's odd that you continue to make excuses for Sarah Palin's ACTIONS, and then try to deflect attention from those attempts by bringing up Obama's ASSOCIATES.

You need not lecture anyone about a "moral compass", because you display your essential lack of one by trying to pin the responsibility for others' actions on Obama.

Obama is not responsible for what some casual associates did 40 years ago. Personal accountability means taking responsibility for your own actions .

Perhaps you need to think on that a bit before you make judgments about me.

Not a sheep said...

If you are happy to support a man who associated with a convicted terrorist, worships in a church whose pastor delivers sermons of a dubious nature and some of whose other friends are more than questionable then that is your right to do so.

If you choose to believe the line that Barack Obama and William Ayers were just "casual acquaintances" then that is your right to do so.

You seem to be happy to believe that Barack Obama was an innocent bystander, a Bambi-like figure all wide eyed and innocent, who just happened to find himself on boards with a convicted terrorist, who just happened to rise through the Chicago political milieu without getting involved in any chicanery, who went to Jeremiah Wright's church for many years but never heard a questionable sermon. You may choose to believe that, I choose not to.

If you want to address the substance of my comments then please feel free to do so. If not, then I will have to assume that you are, after all, just a troll.

Merge Divide said...

Listen... you're the one that brought up Obama and his "associations". Read my original response. I WAS addressing the substance of your post. You just didn't happen to agree with my views.

Of course it's quite common to discount others with differing opinions as "trolls". It's the easiest thing to do when you are tired of an argument. I don't take that personally.

If you think that we couldn't choose any single US politician and link him/her to shady characters and criminals, then you are desperately naïve.

Not a sheep said...

If the cap fits, wear it.

You are becoming quite tiresome. Your original comment referred to "actual issues" but you seem more interested in semantics.

Maybe you would like to comment as to why the MSM seem unwilling to report that Barack Obama received more money than any other senator, save one, from lobbyists working for Fannie/Freddy. You might also wonder why the MSM seem too shy to discuss the presence on Barack Obama's search committee for VP of Jim Johnson (the ex-CEO of Fannie Mae). Perhaps you could address why the MSM seem unable to report that the former senior counsel for Fannie Mae is a Senior Advisor on Barack Obama’s campaign. Maybe you would like to speculate as to how the MSM would have reported these stories if the links had been with
John McCain, Sarah Palin or indeed any Republican politician.

I am interested in your last comment. If you think all politicians have a degree of shadiness in their past then you may well be right, but unless you are willing to discuss the swept under the carpet facts about Barack Obama whilst happily throwing dirt at Sarah Palin then I think you should find another blog to frequent.

Not a sheep said...

Merge Divide: You have submitted another comment throwing dirt at John McCain and the Republicans rather than address the facts about Barack Obama's relationships with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.

If you properly answer these questions then I will post your last comment, if not then I will not.

Not a sheep said...

Merge Divide: Your latest accusations are what I would expect. You clearly have no intention of discussing the major question marks hanging over Barack Obama, questions that I have yet to hear aired on British TV or radio.

It is most kind of you to say that I can run my blog as I see fit, so I will. If you don't answer my questions then I won't post your comments.

Not a sheep said...

Oh well, it would appear that Merge Divide was in fact just a troll. He is still trying to post comments on my blog that witter on about "the truth" and trying to provoke me, but until he addresses the truth about Barack Obama his posts will not be posted on my blog.

It's a shame because at first he seemed quite intelligent; it just goes to show how appearances can be deceptive.

Merge Divide said...

It's interesting that you continually try to make a personal conversation into a private one. The only reason that I continue to communicate with you via "comments" is because I am therefore ensured that you will read and respond.

Thanks for the flattering words, anyway. I'd like to extend an invitation to you to debate issues on my blog, where I don't censor comments I don't like. It's a good way for you to get some publicity for your highly regulated and censored blog. I'm generous like that.

I'm wondering why a blogger from England would try so strenuously to defend Sarah Palin. What's your stake in the American election? If you truly believe that Palin is the future of the international movement(like a modern-day Reagan or Thatcher), then I urge you to watch her interviews in the American media (granted they have been intentionally limited by the McCain campaign, but a few do exist). In addition, I'll be looking forward to hearing you justify your position after Thursday's VP debate.

Don't worry about making any public responses to my comments- I already understand your official blog position. Should I be looking for your answers on your blog, or elsewhere? Just let me know.

Not a sheep said...

Merge Divide: Sorry but you are getting boring now. You tried to post comments on my blog, how I respond to them is up to me.

You can accuse me of censoring your comments, if you wish, you know what subject you have to address if you want them posted. The fact that you refuse to address these matters speaks volumes.

I would have thought that a blogger from anywhere is entitled to express an opinion on the election of the President of the USA, it is a position that impacts upon most of the world's population, one way or another. I think you may confuse my detestation for Barack Obama, his "associates" and his protection from scrutiny for support for John McCain and Sarah Palin. If I had the vote in the USA and I was faced with a choice between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin, the choise would be an easy one to make; on the Democrat side there is lies, ineptitude and the nasty smell of corruption - I think I would cast my vote elsewhere.

Your last line was a good try at being condescending towards me but I won't take it personally. Once again: my blog my rules. If you want your other comments published then answer the questions I have raised; anyone would think you had something to hide...