Liberal media bias and sexism rears its ugly head, again.
The ideology that claims to defend the rights of women, is once again attacking a woman based on her looks. A new article in Vanity Fair focuses on Palin’s looks as a detriment to the 2008 campaign. The personal attacks in this article are so outrageous, one cannot help but laugh at the creativity of the author. This is nothing new to the far left in America. They spent several months attacking Secretary Clinton’s complexion, clothing and body image, but ceased their attacks once Clinton became a member of the Obama administration.
The liberal, east coast media seem determined to continue to publish reflective articles on the McCain 2008 campaign, but they refuse to publish the names of any of the “sources”. Even though campaign advisers continue to go on the record shooting holes in the false stories, the attacks continue.
The media bias is not always directed towards Republican women. In early 2008, the New York Times published an article, ‘suggesting’ that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, but once again refused to publish the names of the sources who made such broad claims. This article was reprinted in dozens of small town newspapers across America. In late 2007, The Politico’s Ben Smith falsely accused Mayor Giuliani of abusing city resources, only to print a small retraction underneath the JC Penny ads, days later. The claims were so outrageous, one wondered why federal investigators had not followed up on the claims? In early 2007 the liberal media began a quiet smear campaign against Governor Romney’s faith and family. When possible, they began dropping the “polygamy’ word in articles that referenced the Romney family, even though the former governor had been married to the same (as in, one) woman for three decades. Why is the lifestyle of Governor Romney’s great grandfather important to a 2008 Presidential election? Ironically enough polygamy has been banned in the Utah constitution and the LDS church for over 100 years, yet plural marriage is still practiced in the villages of Kenya, where President Obama’s family resides.
At what point does the liberal media actually back-up their silliness with the names of those who are attacking Republicans with such vitriolic anger? Is anyone willing to go on the record and state their claim in the public eye? Apparently not. It can only lead one to believe that the sources themselves do not really exist.
Referring to a woman and a prominent political leader as a “fertile female”, in the context of a political article is another step back for any aspiring female political leader, regardless of political ideology.
Two McCain staffers, however, were immediately willing to go on the record with the Washington Times in their support for Mrs. Palin after the Vanity Fair piece was published online.
Jason Recher, who worked closely with Mrs. Palin as a vice presidential candidate, said “The mean tone of this article is completely false, this is not the Sarah Palin I knew and spent two and a half months with.” He also said he was tired of reporters using information about Mrs. Palin from people unwilling to go on the record.
Mr. Recher said he was never approached for the article although he was one of a handful of people who spent “every morning, day and night” with Mrs. Palin in the heat of the campaign and is openly supportive of her today.
David Welch, deputy research director for the McCain-Palin ticket, said he was “shocked to read the Vanity Fair article about Governor Palin and the allegations made against her by former staffers” and complained “significant parts of the story are based on half truths and gossip from staffers who refused to go on the record.”
About Mrs. Palin’s looks Mr. Purdum said, that although he admitted it may be sexist to think, “she is by far the best-looking woman ever to rise to such heights in national politics, the first indisputably fertile female to dare to dance with the big dogs.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Well good for McCain’s staffers. It was a travesty that none of them supported her when those nasty rumors were coming out shortly after the election. The fact that McCain just past them off as “typical things that happen in a campaign” sank my opinion of him even further.
The fact that they are pushing back and pushing back hard restores my faith in them.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard called out Steve Schmidt as one of the anonymous sources,
June 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
There was an allusiion in the article that Sarah was suffering from post-partum depression and was mentally unbalanced.
Thus the new narrative begins. Sarah may not be stupid, just crazy.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Here’s the Vanity Fair piece to which Kris is referring:
It Came from Wasilla
Despite her disastrous performance in the 2008 election, Sarah Palin is still the sexiest brand in Republican politics, with a lucrative book contract for her story. But what Alaska’s charismatic governor wants the public to know about herself doesn’t always jibe with reality. As John McCain’s top campaign officials talk more candidly than ever before about the meltdown of his vice-presidential pick, the author tracks the signs—political and personal—that Palin was big trouble, and checks the forecast for her future.
By Todd S. Purdum
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/sarah-palin200908?printable=true¤tPage=all
June 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Isn’t it great that untrained men can diagnose that illness so well?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I wouldn’t necessarily call this anonymous:
Schmidt, Plouffe on long-shot McCain
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D50951D2-18FE-70B2-A869B5580CEF1CAE
June 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
what does #6 have to do with the Vanity Fair article?
June 30th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Do you notice the timing of the article coincides with the last day of SarahPAC contributions before the semi-annual report has to be submitted to the FEC?
Could it be that the anti-Palin forces want to take the focus on her fundraising and popularity and refocus the attention on her personality or political judgment?
Perhaps the GOP establishment realize that the Sarah is a moron is an insult to her supporters and that Sarah is unstable, crazy or a lunatic bitch will play better ‘down home’.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/slide5.html
June 30th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
#7
When in doubt throw in the non sequitur.
Or is Aron suggesting that Sarah has some sort of diabolical mental telepathy going for her across great distances that convinced McCain to choose her?
Or is Aron suggesting Lieberman would have been a far better VP candidate for the Republican party than Sarah Palin?
June 30th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
#8
on=off
June 30th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Kris,
It’s no mystery that Steve Schmidt wasn’t/isn’t a Palin fan.
Here’s the link to Kristol’s comments:
Kristol: Liberal Media and GOP Hacks vs. Palin
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/kristol_liberal_media_and_gop.asp
June 30th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
bob,
Steve Schmidt thought Lieberman would have been a better VP candidate, and saw the pick of Palin as a desperate Hail Mary pass.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Aron,
Even though Schmidt was responsible for making the VP selection? hhmmm…
I cannot see SS making these claims to Vf off the record. Why would a young operative with potential ruin his political career?
June 30th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Well, Schmidt was wrong; I’ll say that; Lieberman would have been worse than Palin, in spite of her inabilities to debate and interview. She at least turned out a good part of the base, while they would have stayed home rather than vote for a liberal Democrat on the ticket (other than FP of course).
June 30th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Kristofer, (or anyone else) I’m just asking because I don’t know. Who did Schmidt make those claims to? Apparently someone, because Kristol named him by name…
June 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I can’t see one error in that Vanity Fair piece on our Sarah.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
By the way national editors of well known magazines like VF don’t just make up sources.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Since the election, Steve Schmidt has also attacked the GOP for its intolerance toward gays, and attributed McCain/Palin’s opposition to same-sex marriage as the reason the Republican ticket performed so poorly among younger voters.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
BTW how can you complain about sexism against SP and then run that photo against Hill (even if you claim it was from a left wing source which you didn’t)?
June 30th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Yes, I remember that Aron. Anyone know the answer to my #16?
June 30th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
The Democrats are very afraid of Governor Palin and are trying to derail her 2012 campaign before it starts but ironically hit pieces like this as well as other bogus attacks may be what ultimately propel Governor Palin to the nomination as they stir up irreversible backlashes among the Republican base and independent women. Governor Palin benefits from the derangement of her attackers and she will build a movement unseen by the Republican Party since Reagan.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The article does come across as biased, although to my mind the worst piece of bias is not the mental bits but the one line devoted to her greatest triumph (winning the 2006 election).
But its unsurprising that people would only speak off the record about her. She is a potential employer in 2012 for any operative, and no ones going to go out of their way to put themselves on the record against someone who has been vindictive against those who cross her (Levi Johnston, here’s looking at you).
June 30th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
22 – You don’t think its likely they are stirring up such backlashes purposefully instead of making real, substantial attacks on her precisely because they AREN’T afraid of running against her?
June 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Well this latest attack has accomplished what it was intended to. Get Republicans talking about their girl Palin rather than Obama.
This has nothing to do with 2012 and everything to do with protecting Obama’s failings. And guess what? It works!
June 30th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I don’t see anything about Palin that would conjure fear in political opponents. She sounds like a retard when she speaks off the cuff. She just does.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
#9..Sarah may be a runner, but she’s got brand new tenny’s on for this photo op
June 30th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
@22 – I don’t believe that for a minute….that they are afraid of her….I think they want her really, really badly to be our candidate. They are trying to accomplish that by ticking off her base
June 30th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Adam,
I agree wholeheartedly with you on your first statement, but the second sentence is a little harsh — maybe a remedial ESL student.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
The problem with this kind of article is that, if it’s true, Sarah Palin is scary, and if it is not true, Vanity Fair is scary, but there is almost no way to find out.
Everybody thinks political operatives are two-faced (spin on the record, be bluntly truthful off the record) so it could be true or it could be a near fabrication.
We ought to find out one way or another long before 2012 so that we don’t waste our time with it one way or the other.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Scheunemann just went on record, making it three to go on record today in support of Palin. Vanity Fair does not have one former McCain staffer on record.
http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/jun/30/mccain-staffers-push-back-on-vanity-fairs-palin-pr/
“Randy Scheunemann, director of foreign policy and national security for the McCain-Palin campaign and who played Joe Biden in Mrs. Palin’s debate prep, was happy to push back against the Vanity Fair piece, saying she was an impressive and capable candidate.
He recalled her performance in the vice-presidential debate where she “held her own and went toe-to-toe” against Mr. Biden, a candidate with much more experience in debates and decades of public service. She was “incredibly hard-working and concerned she’d do a good job for John McCain who was a national hero and plucked her from obscurity,” Mr. Scheunemann said. “That weighed on her every day.”
“It’s disheartening and dishonorable anyone who worked for John McCain would participate in this kind of character assassination against his running mate,” Mr. Scheunemann said.”
June 30th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGJiMTYyMzU3ZmE3NDIxNGI2ZjU1N2VhMWQxODE3ODU=
June 30th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
#31
“It’s disheartening and dishonorable anyone who worked for John McCain would participate in this kind of character assassination against his running mate,” Mr. Scheunemann said.”
What does this mean? Sounds to me like staffers are talking negatively about Palin. Is it just one person or several?
Why are they talking? What’s going on here? Is there no fire where there is smoke?
This is the trouble with Sarah Palin, we don’t really know what’s up with her. Is she just a facade? A normal Republican politician? Or Superwoman?
June 30th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
9. Funny slideshow. Is she in another pageant?
June 30th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Tommy Boy, Geraghty doesn’t give substantive rebuttals to anything in the article. He just basically goes back to the lame comparisons to Obama. Anyway, in the end he says he doesn’t think she should run in 2012, and he’s right.
But, Sarah wants to plow through the door, and she’s not about to start doing the sensible thing.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
#25:
I would not discount that theory regarding Obama one bit. I have resolved never to be surprised to the lengths the Obama war room will go to protect their man.
Boy that Michael Jackson death. I know Obama had nothing to do with it but not only does it pay to be devious-it also pays to be damned lucky as well.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
I have to say… just saw the picture of her in runner’s world. She is hot.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Former McCain staffers angry over Palin prayer remark
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/03/26/palin_mccain/
Report: McCain 2008 Staffers Angered By Palin’s Prayer Remarks
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/report-mccain-2008-staffers-angered-by-palins-prayer-remarks.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqwDpE7ixbI&eurl= (Go to 4-minute mark)
New drama: McCain staffers angry at Palin for saying she didn’t want to pray with them
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/26/new-drama-mccain-staffers-angry-at-palin-for-saying-she-didnt-want-to-pray-with-them/
June 30th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
The only surprise is that he wasn’t the first to do so.
Sources: McCain aide fired for ‘trashing’ staff
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/05/soruces-mccain-aide-fired-for-trashing-staff/
McCain aide disputes sources, denies firing
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/06/mccain-adviser-disputes-campaign-i-was-not-fired/
McCain aide: Palin ‘going rogue’
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/25/mccain-aide-palin-going-rogue/
Hackers and Spending Sprees
Highlights from NEWSWEEK’s special election project.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581
FNC Video: Fox’s Carl Cameron and O’Reilly Discuss Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFJ-bJTIx-0
FNC Video: Shepard Smith w/Carl Cameron: Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
June 30th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
The article is a hit piece, but there’s some obvious truth in it. Such as:
1. She is the sexiest and riskiest brand in the GOP. Anyone who denies a lot of her support is based on looks is just not being honest. I’ve been saying if she looked like Harriet Myers, the author uses Susan Boyle. Either way, Palin wouldn’t be here right now if she were not an attractive female.
2. Palin did indeed display ignorance on foreign policy and domestic issues. She has not shown in the ensuing months that anything has changed. Rather than take on serious policy questions with the administration (as Romney and others are doing), she choose fights with Levi, and Letterman – she lowers herself by fighting with clowns, but it seems to be the kind of territory in which she’s most comfortable.
3.The McCain campaign was in turmoil, much of having to do with Palin. This is nothing surprising, or new. We’ve been hearing about it for months from McCain’s own people.
4. McCain spent very little time with Palin before choosing her.
5.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
oops, pushed submit too soon.
5. The stories of her inability and unwillingness to prepare for the debate have been around for a while, too. We have our own evidence anyway. She announced at the beginning that she wouldn’t answer questions she didn’t feel like answering, and her debate performance was dismal when you go on substance. Yes, I know a lot of folks said she won because she winked and blew kisses. Halco’s comment about Palin saying info/knowledge doesn’t matter is certainly substantiated ib the debate with Biden.
6. We also heard how she wanted to give a concession speech on election night and McCain said no. What a diva. It adds to the notion that everything is always about Palin.
7. We know that Palin was all for the bridge to nowhere before it became a national embarrassment.
8. Ww know she was a big porker when she was mayor, and initially as gov.
9. We know she’s hired many friends from high school for top gov jobs.
10. We know that she uses private email accounts for gov business.
11. We know that Todd uses her office, gets copied on hundreds of government emails, and used her power to try to fire Wooten.
12. We know she lobbied for the stimulus, and then came home and spoke out against it. Then she had a press conference where she said she would accept about half, based on ideology. Then she took it all.
13. Palin is a whiner who blames others for her own failures.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Time for Sarah to get into a public fight over her faith. Undoubtedly it will confirm everyone’s narrative, for independents and liberals, it will mean she is a backstabbing holy roller, for religious conservatives, she will be a victim of a godless liberal media. If you support Sarah, you have to ask yourself, could I take 8 years of this drama?
June 30th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
#31
What interesting is that Schnueman doesn’t dispute Vanity Fair’s article. So its clear that some staffers are making those comments off the record.
And its also true that people are less truthful on the record. Palin didn’t beat Biden in the VP debate, she just beat expectations (which were very low to start with)
June 30th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Oh waaaaaa. It’s funny how the same info gets reported from so many different sources. Sounds like there’s an element of truth in the diva.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Yes. Poor mistreated Sarah. It’s like a watching a bad movie. And then its sequel. And then its sequel. And then its sequel.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
I have a bunch of kids. if 6 of them come in and tell me the same information in 6 different ways about kid number 7, I take note, and can figure out what is going on. Kid 7 will usually say that the other 6 are picking on him or her, and what they all are saying, in 6 different ways, is wrong and is a conspiracy against him or her.
I did not think this was a ‘hit piece’ at all. The author did say some postive things about Palin. It seemed balanced.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
I saw the sequel to this absurd B-flick last year. And though I’d give it two big thumbs up (or three
) on Bill Simmons’ UCR scale, if they do another remake in four years, or eight or 16, you’d have to pay me to go back to the theater to see it. I guess some people are just gluttons for punishment.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Sarah’s quite the little victim.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Haha. Nice, Aron.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
#39… all those were proven to be falsehoods pushed by bitter McCain staffers trying to blame anyone but themselves for losing the election.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
“It seemed balanced.”
Oh, come on. The editorial tone was clearly disparaging. That doesn’t, however, make it not true. The McCain staffers to go on the record don’t rebut any of the substance of the very, very lengthy article, which contains many specific anecdotes and observances of her. “She didn’t seem that way to me” is not a refutation of the article, it’s a difference of opinion. Palin fans will, inevitably, try to dismiss the piece out of hand as a cheap hit job without actually engaging its substance. I mean, did Vanity Fair just invent the entire thing? I think not.
As far as I’m concerned, she’s been summarily discredited – and certainly not just by the VF article in isolation – as a voice in national politics by virtue of temperament, intellect, and integrity. I would never, never vote for her in a general – I’d go third party in a heartbeat.