To read the leftist media today is to find descriptions of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as some kind of corruption-tinged hell cat sociopath bent on destroying all that is America. The leftstream media paints a picture of Palin as a book burning condom stealing zealot.
But 11 months ago, long before Palin threatened to forever erase the notion that feminism on the national stage is solely for women who like to kill babies, openly hate men and are ugly as hell, Newsweek painted a much different picture: Palin as a corruption-busting trailblazer.
In Alaska, Palin is challenging the dominant, sometimes corrupting, role of oil companies in the state’s political culture. “The public has put a lot of faith in us,” says Palin during a meeting with lawmakers in her downtown Anchorage office, where-as if to drive the point home-the giant letters on the side of the ConocoPhillips skyscraper fill an entire wall of windows. “They’re saying, ‘Here’s your shot, clean it up’.” For Palin, that has meant tackling the cozy relationship between the state’s political elite and the energy industry that provides 85 percent of Alaska’s tax revenues-and distancing herself from fellow Republicans, including the state’s senior U.S. senator, Ted Stevens, whose home was recently searched by FBI agents looking for evidence in an ongoing corruption investigation. (Stevens has denied any wrongdoing.) But even as she tackles Big Oil’s power, Palin has transformed her own family’s connections to the industry into a political advantage. Her husband, Todd, is a longtime employee of BP, but, as Palin points out, the “First Dude” is a blue-collar “sloper,” a fieldworker on the North Slope, a cherished occupation in the state. “He’s not in London making the decisions whether to build a gas line.”
In an interview with NEWSWEEK, Palin said it’s time for Alaska to “grow up” and end its reliance on pork-barrel spending. Shortly after taking office, Palin canceled funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere,” a $330 million project that Stevens helped champion in Congress. The bridge, which would have linked the town of Ketchikan to an island airport, had come to symbolize Alaska’s dependence on federal handouts. Rather than relying on such largesse, says Palin, she wants to prove Alaska can pay its own way, developing its huge energy wealth in ways that are “politically and environmentally clean.”
And where’s today’s shrill hillbilly right wing nutjob? Less than a year ago, Newsweek found a post-partisan Palin frequently reaching across the aisle. And, shockingly, Newsweek managed to write an entire article about Palin without fantasizing about the sex life of any of the Governor’s under-aged daughters even once.
Although she has been in office less than a year, Palin, too, earns high marks from lawmakers on the other side of the aisle. During a debate earlier this year over a natural-gas bill, State Senate Minority Leader Beth Kerttula was astounded when she and another Democrat went to see the new governor to lay out their objections. “Not only did we get right in to see her,” says Kerttula, “but she asked us back twice—we saw her three times in 10 hours, until we came up with a solution.” Next week in Juneau, Alaska lawmakers will meet to overhaul the state’s system for taxing oil companies—a task Palin says was tainted last year by an oil-industry lobbyist who pleaded guilty to bribing lawmakers. Kerttula doesn’t expect to agree with the freshman governor on every step of the complex undertaking. But the minority leader looks forward to exploiting one backroom advantage she’s long waited for. “I finally get to go to the restroom and talk business with the governor,” she says. “The guys have been doing this for centuries.” And who says that’s not progress?
Of course, this isn’t media bias. It’s pure coincidence that, 11 months ago when the chief enemies of the left were “big oil” and the Republican Party, Newsweek found a heroine in Palin, and now that Palin is “Left Enemy #1″ and threatening the coronation of Bill Ayers’ best-buddy, the discredited leftstream media finds her a villain.
Like this article? Read all Sarah Palin coverage at Bucks Right.
Like That? You'll Probably Like These.
- Fighting Palin Smears: Earmarks and Bridge to Nowhere
- Fighting Palin Smears: Cut Funding For Teen Mothers
- Gingrich: Media Like Soviet Press, Palin Like Walesa
- Washington Post Plays Headline Versus Article
- ABC Retracts ‘Palin Looking Past 2008 to 2012′ Story
Tagged
Media Bias, Sarah Palin41 Responses to “Leftist Media Gives High Praise To Palin – 11 Months Ago”
Comments posted are the opinions of the individual poster and do not reflect the views of Bucks Right. Comments are only moderated to prevent spam. No legitimate opinions are altered for content, although we reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. VALID e-mail address required.
Great stuff!!!
so i guess you like the video where lieberman praises obama from 2006 and says he is a blessing.
i really like the video of palin’s speech to that alaska independence group and the ones where she is cackling like a hen when the host calls another woman a bi–h and cancer.
there are lots of good things out there if you look!
You lost the election in a 36 minute span on the evening of 9/3/08, lefty. You heard it here first.
The link to the Newsweek article no longer works..wonder if they started moving it around? LOL Glad your link worked, thanks.
Thanks for the heads up. Updated with a new link from Yahoo’s cache. I see Drudge also picked this up.
You make a good point. I can’t speak for the media at large, but I can speak for myself. My biggest issue with Palin right now is that McCain picked her; and I honestly don’t trust either McCain OR Obama because both horribly misrepresent their views… and it doesn’t take very much research to find this out. Both are steeped in double-talk, and I fear that Palin and Biden are much of the same simply due to association (although I will have to do more research before I can claim this more definitively).
And all along, true mavericks like Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kucinich (D) – whose actions actually reflect their speech – are passed over because they happen not to have been popular enough at the beginning of the nomination process… therefore setting of a chain reaction of discrimination – based on questionable “polling numbers” by private corporations – against them that makes it hard for voters to truly learn about them. Honestly… the least you can ask for is equal talk-time for all candidates right out the gates, when the nomination process had just started. Those two could honestly have been their parties’ nominees respectively, if they had been given equal air-time.
It’s a sad state of affairs…
PS – I came here via stumbleupon, so I probably don’t fall under your typical reader demographic; so I’d like to make another quick point. Since you imply that the media leans left, I will say that the media does not have a LEFT or RIGHT leaning bias… it has a PRO-CORPORATE and ESTABLISHMENT bias. That’s why they never question the political establishment of the day too hard… Reporters know to push it only so far, otherwise they stand the risk of losing their jobs. When the White house is republican, the media has a right-leaning bias… and when the White house is democratic, the media has a left-leaning bias. But they always seem to lean towards the establishment’s interests.
And it just may be that Palin truly represents a threat to the corporate world, which has caused the media to react this way… and I say this despite disagreeing with her on myriad of issues. I do recognize the need to be fair, as I do have to leave room for this possibility, since I have not read up about her enough yet.
Let me first compliment you, Trent, on a great response. The future for our country would be much brighter if Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were accepting nominations from their respective parties right now. But they are too worried about helping the people of America, and defending the Constitution to please the big, corporate political sponsors.
Now in response to the original post: If you were to look at the original source article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/42534), you’ll see that the premise was to point out how well women could succeed as governmental leaders in a political climate that was once dominated by men. However, your clever editing job would lead some to (wrongly) believe that this is an in-depth, glowing profile on Palin. In truth, this was a very light, op-ed piece that focused ONLY on the positive aspects of the women leaders in order to support its original premise.
To some people, it may seem like the media is (unfairly) painting an ugly picture of Palin, but considering that McCain has nominated a relative unknown to be his replacement as leader of the free world, I think the American people have the right to know about ALL of the skeletons in her closet before they cast their vote in November. The media is doing their job: informing the public about the candidates. The other three White House hopefuls have been on the national stage for several years, so it makes perfect sense that the media would focus its attention on a surprise candidate who most Americans had never heard of. And to suggest that any criticisms now leveled against her represent some kind of media bias is an obvious case of partisan finger-pointing.
Yes, what’s going on inside her daughter’s vagina is highly relevant. The leftists’ fascination with teenaged-vagina is right on target.
Considering I just pasted in every paragraph from the article that mentioned Palin, I’m not sure how “clever” my editing actually was.
Um, last time I checked, YOU were the only one talking about “teenaged-vagina.” If anything has been referenced in the media, it is the fact that their is a baby growing inside this unwed teenager’s WOMB. Considering that she is the daughter of a politician who trumpets conservative family values and abstinence only sex-ed, I think it is very relevant.
Now, you could argue that the fact is irrelevant, but you can’t fault the media for reporting the facts.
“Facts” like Trig not being Palin’s son, instead being born to her daughter? “Facts” like speculating about who was the father involved in that imaginary pregnancy? Are those the kind of “facts” you’re talking about?
Just to clarify, Newsweek isn’t leftist and she hadn’t been charged with Abuse of Power for firing someone like she was a White House employee working for Alberto Gonzales and Dick Cheney. Where are the digg staff to mark this article as inaccurate?
Wow – a pro-Obama post out of someone with a .de website. What a shock.
When Obama loses in November, you German folks who seem to adore him so much can have him all to yourselves.
“Facts” like Trig not being Palin’s son, instead being born to her daughter?
No, I was obviously talking about the fact that her 17 year old daughter conceived a child out of wedlock.
Yes, there were rumors about Trig’s real mother circulating briefly on liberal blogs, but no major news outlet reported that story as FACT.
(I’m replying to the original post now because it seems I have been blocked from replying to the original conversation.)
Steven…You need to take some ritilin or prozac or something. You tried to make a point that was VERY weak, connecting a “fluff” article written by Newsweek to overall Liberal ideology. Don’t feel bad when people don’t get it.
This article obviously has a right-wing fluffy spin on it. It mentions that she has championed herself in a battle to oppose earmarks when she was instrumental in getting the highest per capita earmark funding in the nation. More than doouble the national average. WOW!!!
It mentions that her husband is a good ol’ boy, a blue-collar field worker. It fails to mention that he belonged to a political party that called for Alaska’s secession from the union. One who’s leader said that he refused to be buried on U.S. soil and instead was going to be buried in Canada because he hated the country so much.
It mentions that she took on Ted Stevens, not that she campaigned with him and actually chaired an organization founded by him, oh that is until he was indicted on 7 federal felony charges, than she felt the need to distance herself.
It says that she returned funding for the “bridge to nowhere”, not that she was instrumental in getting the earmarks and only turned against the project when it became the subject of national outgrage.
I could go on, but you won’t listen to logic anyway. You are a right-wing parrot, backed into a corner and forced to defend one of the most thoughtless, foolish, irresponsible decisions in American politcal history. I feel really horrible for the right-wingers and will for the next two months. Your party is making that whole spiral-eyed robot thing harder and harder to pull off every day.
Get back to me on Tuesday, when the tracking polls will fully reflect the Palin era in Politics that began last night. You libs don’t know what hit you.
If her husband has never before been proud of his country, that puts him on par with your candidate’s wife.
If she’s never gone to the house of two terrorists looking for support to begin her political career, that puts her one ahead of your candidate.
If she’s didn’t sit for 20 years bobbing her head and “Hurraying” for “God Damn America” that puts her one more ahead of your candidate.
If she wasn’t mentored by an admitted Communist like Frank Marshall Davis, that puts her another ahead.
If she was never registered in grade school as “Barry Soetoro, Muslim,” one more point in her column.
If she never learned all she could from Khalid al-Mansour, another point.
I could go on, but you won’t listen to logic anyway.
I see this pathetic debate strategy over and over from right-wingers. Rather than continue a losing argument, they will quickly change the subject. And that new subject is usually a character assassination in which facts are twisted and/or lies & assumptions are bandied about as the truth.
It’s pointless to discuss anything if we can’t even stay on topic, yet the GOP has been a big fan of this distraction technique lately.
What isn’t know generally is that Palin and the State of Alaska never gave the 330 million dollars that the Federal government gave them for the ‘bridge to nowhere’ even though the project was cancelled. So, there has been no savings for the taxpayers.
@Levi -
Conversations here are pretty easy to follow. If you need assistance in doing so, please just ask.
JRay wanted to list what he didn’t see mentioned in the linked article, and I replied with mentions of things I never see mentioned in any article, ever, anywhere. If we’re going to vet, and if we’re going to include political statements and opinions of spouses in that vetting, then lets vet.
The media has vetted Sarah, Bristol, Todd and Trig Palin. Now let’s move on to Obama.
Steven, I’ll make this simple for you…
JRay pointed out details missing from the article you referenced in order to prove his point that this was a “fluff” piece.
You brought up a whole slew of non-related topics, thus attempting to shift the debate to your liking. It’s not hard to follow, it’s just an obvious retreat from your original assertion.
To get back on topic, I’d like to point out the misleading nature of this quote from your original blog, “…Newsweek managed to write an entire article about Palin…” It’s obvious that the article in question was not a profile of Palin. She was not important enough on the national stage for that kind of treatment. …and the only reason she’s getting so much (negative AND positive) attention 11 months later is because she is running for Vice President.
Why would you post an old, non-partisan fluff piece, when you obviously just wanted a forum wherein you could lambast Obama and his wife?
…because it often takes me two days to get around to doing with a piece of writing what I really want to do with it. And I always do it three pages down in the comments. That much is clear from reading the 263 items I’ve posted since establishing this site in late June.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I actually have “a forum wherein [I] can lambast Obama and his wife” 24 hours a day from here until he slinks back into the Senate on November 5. I don’t need some drive-by commenter reposting innuendo from left-wing blogs as an excuse.
Oh! So this is an unfinished piece then? I had no idea. I guess we all should have let it sit here for a few days until you had time to really do what you wanted to do with it. Maybe to avoid confusion, you should spend more time on each of your “items” (you know, actually finish) before you post them.
By all means, the world is your forum. Just don’t expect to garner any real respect by changing the subject every time you are challenged.
Perhaps I should have spelled it out for the humorless left.
–WARNING: SARCASM AFOOT–…because it often takes me two days to get around to doing with a piece of writing what I really want to do with it. And I always do it three pages down in the comments. That much is clear from reading the 263 items I’ve posted since establishing this site in late June.–SAFE ZONE: END OF SARCASTIC COMMENT PORTION
Oh, that was an attempt at some Palin-style sarcasm!?
I think I speak for the majority of people (who have not blindly pledged allegiance to everything with a rightward slant) when I say that we’re not buying into your weak arguments, and we’re definitely not amused.
Looks like we could all use a little “Palin-Style”
==
Both Obama and McCain are now viewed favorably by 57% of the nation’s voters (see trends). However, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is viewed favorably by 58%–a point more than either Presidential hopeful.
==
wtf? Those have to be the most pointless statistics I have ever seen. So McCain AND Obama are both viewed favorably by 57% of voters? …and Palin beat them both by a whole percentage point. Amazing.
What is the source of these “statistics”? Without a source it’s just more empty rhetoric.
No matter the source, the “viewed favorably” phrase wreaks of more irrelevant, softball journalism.
Keep flailing. Better luck in ‘12.
The polls today show Palin down by 40% over her previous 10% margin of favorability to likely voters east of the Mississippi, but west of the Ohio in areas that get more than 25 inches of rain per fiscal quarter. This obviously means that I like to make up data to prove my point, something I learned while getting my degree at the Conservative Institute.
Without a source, you are nothing!!!
I assumed you read things other than me. How flattering. Sorry.
It’s from Rasmussen’s daily, which will of course be different after 9:30 AM tomorrow. Get it while it’s hot.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Who is Sarah Palin? I did some research on her a month ago and I was impressed. Of course I didn’t vet her and uncover her husbands DUI 22 years ago. Oh well, you cant win them all. At least he didn’t snort cocaine.
I can tell you who Sarah Palin isn’t .
She doesn’t believe in the wholesale slaughter of human fetuses.
She doesn’t believe in sucking the brains out a wriggling late term baby.
She isn’t part of the corrupt Washinton D.C. establishment
She isn’t a Chicago politician
She doesn’t hobnob with San Francisco elitist’s
She isn’t a member of a radical church
She hasn’t had an association with a known terrorist
She doesn’t think the folks in West Virginia are bitter and cling to their Bibles and guns
She doesn’t think of having a baby as a punishment
She isn’t the darling of the mainstream media
She isn’t the darling of the Hollywood Bunch
She doesn’t change her position with every shift of the wind
She isn’t evasive about where she stands
She isn’t a socialst
She doesn’t want to trash the Second Ammendment
She doesn’t want to give you a tire gauge to solve the energy crises
She doesn’t want to tax you to death
She is not a globalist
She doesn’t want to stop drilling for oil
She doesn’t think coming from a small town is a disgrace
What else do you want to know that she isn’t?
Steven,
Congratulations on posting a source for the polling. It’s the only thing you’ve done so far that actually increases your credibility. …Although the numbers indicate little more than a virtual dead heat among McCain and Obama.
The high numbers for Palin surely need to be taken with a grain of salt too. She had been on the national stage for all of two days (or less) when the poll was taken. Yes, a minority of people polled may have done their own research about Palin, her background, and stance on the issues, but most Americans still know very little about her besides what they have seen of her on television so far. That is to say, an acceptance speech, and her speech at the RNC which was mostly a sarcastic rant against Obama. She looks nice, speaks clearly, and is politically savvy. If that’s all it takes to impress people, then the White House as seen in the movie Idiocracy may be a reality in the near future..
You should look up the meaning of “sarcasm” and then read this post:
http://www.bucksright.com/analysis-obamas-speech-contained-more-attacks-than-palins-912
She looks nice, speaks clearly, and is politically savvy. If that’s all it takes to impress people, then the White House as seen in the movie Idiocracy may be a reality in the near future.
Sounds like Obama. “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy” according to Biden, right?
lol This “analysis” is just too rich. Your man Jim Lindgren says that these statements from Obama represent sarcasm:
In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is — you’re on your own.
Out of work? Tough luck.
No health care? The market will fix it.
Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps — even if you don’t have boots.
Fail. It helps if you actually listen to the speech that your analyzing instead of taking each line out of context and plopping it into your little sarcasm detector. The first statement is just that. A statement of fact, plain and simple. The other three phrases show Obama paraphrasing common republican sentiment. This is NOT sarcasm at all.
And yes, Obama is all of those things but he is also much more than a corrupt small town mayor and first term governor of a small, rural state.
In this thread, you’ve failed to recognize sarcasm when it was present in my comments and you’ve misidentified the comments of Governor Palin as sarcasm when they were not. Now you’re the expert?
Steven,
[Once again, I have been blocked from replying to the original conversation. It seems like getting the last word is more important than "healthy debate" around here.]
I may be more of an expert than you and your sources, it seems. It is a well-known fact that sarcasm is nearly impossible to detect in written texts. Sarcasm does not translate well to paper – ask any linguistics professor in the world, and they’ll tell you the same thing.
And considering that I’ve quoted a total of zero (0) comments from Sarah Palin, it would be impossible for me to misidentify any of them. Instead I was referring to tone of her speech at the RNC.
[Once again, I have been blocked from replying to the original conversation. It seems like getting the last word is more important than "healthy debate" around here.]
Wow – a lefty with conspiracy theories and paranoia. That’s something you never see.
Actually, the limit is three nested comments to avoid having 1mm wide blocks of unreadable text and looking like shit. I make a comment, then you post an asinine paranoid reply, then I reply. Three.
Believe me, the only thing I’m paranoid about is that this country is being over-populated by people like you.
Good job replying ONLY to my parenthetical phrase and ignoring the bulk of my comment. It’s so much easier to shift the dialog (a.k.a. change the subject) rather than defend your position, isn’t it?
Believe me, the only thing I’m paranoid about is that this country is being over-populated by people like you.
Forgive me for not believing you. “over-populated with people like me” is also known as Electoral Majority, so get used to it. We took your tingle-legged duo off the air and we’re taking your candidate out of the race, and there’s nothing you can do but sit back and watch it happen. You know, sorry.
And considering that I’ve quoted a total of zero (0) comments from Sarah Palin, it would be impossible for me to misidentify any of them.
You libs like child-like chants, so I’ll give you one. When you lie, I do not reply.
Did you NOT say most of Palin’s speech was a “sarcastic rant?” A speech is a series or words. You are right in your assertion that you provided no quotes or facts or evidence, but you did write it about the series or words spoken by Palin.
That is to say, an acceptance speech, and her speech at the RNC which was mostly a sarcastic rant against Obama.
When a lib writes “you changed the subject” it means “I lost the debate.” There are certain comments that are so outlandish and divorced from reality that they do not warrant reply. I believe you’re there.
“over-populated with people like me” is also known as Electoral Majority, so get used to it.
I guess if you blowhards keeping having large litters of 5+, we will all have to deal with an moronic majority somehow, but I don’t think I’ll ever get used to it.
Yes, I still think that Palin’s speech at the RNC was the most sarcastic, mean-spirited rant I have seen on such a large stage in a long time… Perhaps rivaled in tenacity and deception only by her fellow neocon, Rudy Giuliani.
When a lib writes “you changed the subject” it means “I lost the debate.””
Oh, really? So a desire to stay on topic signals retreat, while shifting the debate to a new topic signals some kind of logical victory? LOL
Again, this is too rich for me. You can have your little blogspace to yourself now. It’s clear that you aren’t really interested in any kind of real intellectual discourse.
When seeking intellectuals, I’ll know right where to go. And that’s sarcasm.
Wow, this may be a little late, but i just read this entire thread of comments and Steven pwned Levi. Sorry Levi.
Update: Found a permanent one for you:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080905/pl_rasmussen/palinpower20080905