We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Economist lies about Sarah Palin and John McCain “Vetted for fifteen minutes”
So runs the subheading in the “Lexington” article about Sarah Palin in this week’s Economist magazine. A choice, the Economist says, which raises serious questions about John McCain’s judgement… and the rest of the normal left media establishment spin.
The line is a lie, as Governor Palin was closely vetted by the McCain campaign over an extended period of time.
No doubt some clever-clever person will come up with the excuse that if I read the small print of the article (or read it up side down and in a mirror) then… However, I am not interested in excuses, the intention of the article is plain. The intention is to use lies and distortions to undermine any challenge to the “liberal” left power elite.
As for the source of the “Vetted for fifteen minutes” lie. The New York Times of course (Joe Stalin’s best friend in the Western World). A cynic might question how close the New York Times is to the McCain campaign, but the Economist would denounce such evil right wing cynics.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
It is farcical.
Even if it is not then what is “vetting” anyway? Sounds sinister. And surely, surely if the good people of any state in the Union see fit to elect you Governor then…
ludicrous on so many levels.
Mrs Palin, who has been the governor of a state with a population of 670,000 for less than two years, is the most inexperienced candidate for a mainstream party in modern history.
Except for the other three candidates.
Finally, someone compiled all the disproved rumors about Governor Palin in one place.
So McCain can make better decisions is 15 minutes than Obama can in 15 months? Cool.
15 minutes of vetting that lead to a 10 pts lead in the poll.
a good use of the 15 minutes i would say.
Has The Economist endorsed a candidate yet?
I wonder if Mr Obama, with his background in the snake-pit of Chicago machine politics and chums such as that nutjob J. Wright, was “vetted”.
“Has The Economist endorsed a candidate yet?”
Appears to me as if they are All Obama, All of the time, of course, they endorsed Bill C back in the day.
It’s amazing how the MSM and lefty blogs are publishing all the old rumors and lies about Sarah Palin (about her bay, her daughter, the “censorship”, etc.) – all hoaxes and proven lies.
Meanwhile – her record, her acheivents, the things she actually did that are on the public record – are concealed. The way she took on the whole corrupt Republican establishment machinery in Alaska and threw them out of power – this is never mentioned.
We had the BSD before – Bush Derrangement syndrome, now it’s SDS (Sarah derrangement). These people are stark crazy. You can say you disaprove of Sarah’s policies. But what we have istead is an attack which, in tone and intensity is outright crazy. (You hear me, Guy Herbert?).
Ken: they endorsed Kerry in ’04, too. However, I remember thinking at the time that their rationale for doing so wasn’t all that ridiculous.
Tizona have the real dope on all of this…
Caution: Very Strong Language in the video.
Midwesterner already posted that video, Nick M (in the “Palin for President” thread). Still funny, though.
Sorry!
That’s still 14 minutes 59 seconds longer than the Economist took in fact checking this ‘story’.
I wonder why the Left are still trying to push this. There doesn’t seem to be much advantage in pointing out that even your opponent’s ‘bad’ judgements have been a huge success.
Imagine how well McCain will do when he makes a good call!
Sure, the partisan spiel is incorrect or distorted; it always is. But there’s a case to be made that 15 minutes is 14 more than necessary:
“Well, John, you’re in a near-impossible campaign, representing the most resented party on earth, up against a brilliant orator with an aura of freshness and change. For VP, you can choose from these 3 boring white guys in suits, or a good-looking firecracker of a woman who’s the most popular governer in the country. What’ll it be?”
The only good thing about this is that it proves (yet again) that the Economist is not a “free market” magazine (it calls itself a “newspaper” as a tax and mail rate dodge – it may not care about other people having to pay a lot of money but when it comes to itself….).
Using my telepathic powers I will now predict that the Economist will support the formal government take over of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (formal as they were both set up by the government and are government backed and have always been run by political cronies).
The Economist believes in the credit/money bubble economy – sorry an economy “based on financial services” (which is like trying to base a house on its roof).
The idea that the role of a financial company is to get real savings (not smoke and mirrors – which is what lending not 100% from real savings is) and invest them in productive industry (not ponzi schemes) is against everything the Economist stands for.
By the way I know there are strong arguments that letting Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae go bankrupt is an even worse option than the take over (although there are no arguments at all for letting the two scumbags in charge walk away with fifteen million Dollars each).
However, what is so vile about the British media is that the other side of the argument (the let them go bust side) is not put anywhere – including the “Conservative” newspapers. As for the left press it is all “Bush ripps up years of laissez faire policies” – which is the opposite of the truth as Bush has been a wild statist.
On Sarah Palin the misreporting by the British media is either sins of commission (endless stuff about her Creationism – when the lady has never expressed an opinion on the truth or otherwise of Creationism) or omission.
For example, that she was a beauty queen is reported (because that is bad in P.C. Britain), but that she was a basketball star is not reported (because that would make her look good to the British).
For all its many problems at least the United States has dissent – Fox News (for all its many faults) gave the anti bail out side of the arugment as well as the pro side of Sarah Palin.
In Britain there is no dissent – apart from a few blogs such as this one.
How long have the journalists been vetted? The length of a job interview I expect. Not really the point, I know. Still.
now that we have a bit of time between the palin choice it is clear that she isn’t able to handle simple media engagements. Whether you buy into the whole mainstream media thing or not you need to be able to effectively communicate your message through all platforms.
Both Reagan and Clinton were able to do this. Palin becomes a punchline to a bad joke on even softball nightly news interviews. At some point let’s acknowledge that palin is the harrier myers of vp pics and at this point hiding her is just coming across as cowardice
“How long have the journalists been vetted? The length of a job interview I expect. Not really the point, I know. Still.” Trying hard to sound smart!
“15 minutes of vetting that lead to a 10 pts lead in the poll.
a good use of the 15 minutes i would say.”
“That’s still 14 minutes 59 seconds longer than the Economist took in fact checking this ‘story’.”
That is some of the stuff that was written here when Palin was “new.” Maybe next time you guys will let things play out a little before rushing to judgment. Anyone now comes to the blog, reads, laughs, and never comes back again.