First time visitor? Learn more.

Sarah Palin as portrayed by her disloyal staff; and Top 10 Lies in HBO’s ‘Game Change’

by Speranza ( 55 Comments › )
Filed under Election 2008, Media at March 12th, 2012 - 11:30 am

This just confirms what I have suspected – that John McCain himself was emotionally unqualified for the high position that he aspired to. His staff was more interested in cutting down his Vice Presidential running mate then in actually defeating Obama. John McCain is an execrable politician. If you are judged by the company that you keep  (or in politics the  staff that you pick – think the Nixon criminal crew 1971 -73), then McCain was a miserable failure.  I  personally feel that the the treatment she got from Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt  (and the bitterness it engendered) has influenced Palin’s choices (many of them in my opinion to be poor choices) since 2008.  Ed Harris, Julianne Moore and especially Woody Harrelson – three ultra liberal actors – what could go wrong?

by John Podhoretz

Nicolle Wallace was the onetime consultant to CBS News and media aide to George W. Bush who was assigned to work with Sarah Palin after the Alaska governor was chosen as John McCain’s running mate. It was Wallace who assured the McCain campaign that her dear friend Katie Couric, a committed liberal with a history of interviewing Republicans and conservatives in a quietly nasty way, was the right journalist to conduct a major early interview with the extremely conservative vice-presidential nominee.

Palin has only herself to blame for how horribly she came off, but as she was the most hotly sought-after interview in the world at the time, the McCain campaign could have picked and chosen and been cleverly calculating about which journalist would win the prize. Wallace was responsible for one of the great blunders in political advance work of modern media history.

Now, imagine you’re making a movie about the Palin story, one that demonstrates a modicum of sympathy for Sarah Palin’s excoriation at the hands of the media. (I know, I’m talking crazy, but go with me here.) In such a movie, Nicolle Wallace’s catastrophic guidance could have been portrayed in several ways. It could have been played as a simple goof, a wrongheaded political calculation. Or as an example of a kind of golly-gee naïveté, with Wallace being snowed by a seductive Couric. Or as a careerist move killing two birds with one stone, with Wallace seeking to stay in the good graces of her former colleague Couric despite several years of working for Republicans.

Needless to say, that is not how Nicolle Wallace is portrayed in Game Change, the new HBO movie based on the John Heilemann-Mark Halperin bestseller. No, indeed. Wallace is the movie’s heroine. She is the voice of reason, the increasingly alarmed witness to the evil McCain has perpetrated by foisting Palin upon the world. It is through Wallace’s interactions with the vice-presidential candidate that we see confirmed every bad thing anyone has ever said about Palin (save that she is not the mother of Trig—it steers clear of that Sullivanian filth). Wallace (played by Sarah Paulson) delivers screenwriter Danny Strong’s inadvertently hilarious Blue State zinger when, dripping with righteous scorn during a confrontation with Palin, she says with disbelief, “Yeah, you’re just like Hillary.”

[……]

Yes, if ever you wanted circumstantial evidence that the sources within the McCain campaign who spent October 2008 dumping on Palin anonymously might have included Wallace and Schmidt, you need look no further than HBO’s Game Change. The movie presents a moral case for the disreputable conduct of aides who, we can presume, fearlessly drop dirty dimes anonymously to save their own standing in the liberal culture from which they desperately wish not to be excluded.

[……]

Whether you are titillated or not probably has to do with whether it shocks you that people who work in politics are in any way human. In this respect, Game Change handles Sarah Palin (Julianne Moore, blah) more charitably than you might expect. She is shown as a loving and caring mother with some kind of raw genius as a politician who is placed under almost unimaginable pressure at a moment’s notice when she is clearly unprepared for it. But in doing so, Strong and director Jay Roach exhibit not understanding but rather an almost excruciating condescension.

Game Change is mostly liberal catnip, but it does have a wider value. Every politician from now until doomsday should view it as a cautionary tale about choosing your aides wisely.

Read the rest – Back stab

Since I do not subscribe to HBO, I will never see Game Change and frankly I doubt that I would watch it any way if if I could.

by Stacy Drake

Defenders of HBO’s “Game Change” have fought back against those who criticize the politically charged film as a two-hour attack on Sarah Palin. They claim that unless a person has watched it in its entirety, they cannot judge its content or the people involved with the project.

Well, I’ve seen the entire movie, so don’t mind me while I go ahead and judge this piece of high-dollar propaganda.

“Game Change” is pretty easy to deconstruct. At its core, it’s a left-wing project designed to make one of their most hated political enemies toxic. They used people with an axe to grind to legitimize the story they want viewers to believe and help push their agenda. They also have no problem lying.

Honestly, it was difficult to narrow down this list because there were so many fabrications and distortions throughout the film, but here are the top ten lies produced by HBO.

Lie #10: HBO released a defensive statement to the press along with screeners of the film saying the project “is a balanced portrayal of the McCain/Palin campaign.” Having seen the movie in its entirety, I can say that that statement is beyond absurd. There was nothing “balanced” about the story they told. As someone who has studied Palin’s career for years, I can say that I didn’t even recognize the person sold as “Governor Palin,” here played by Julianne Moore.

Beyond the grotesque character assassination, there is a heavy partisan imbalance at work. “Game Change” portrays most Republicans in a bad light — everyone minus Steve Schmidt (Woody Harrelson), Nicolle Wallace (Sarah Paulson), Mark Wallace (Ron Livingston), and Chris Edwards (Larry Sullivan). One character refers to former Vice President Dick Cheney as “Darth Vader,” while the McCain/Palin rallies depict unhinged men yelling “terrorist” and “he’s a Muslim” at the mention of Obama’s name. Then, there was the the quote they placed toward the end of the movie which had Sen. John McCain (Ed Harris) warning Palin not to get “co-opted by Limbaugh and the other extremists.” None of these instances were balanced and were clearly told from a left-wing point of view.

Lie #9: Virtually every characteristic attributed to Palin in “Game Change” is false. They portray her as egotistical, ungracious, demanding, stupid, forgetful and, cruelest of all, mentally unstable. They do show her as a loving mother, even though they have her go into “catatonic stupors” when separated from her children. Even when they’re trying to be nice they’re mean. I don’t know Palin personally, but I know people who do. I have never heard any stories that fit the descriptions listed above; in fact, I’ve heard just the opposite.

An egotistical person wouldn’t put her state’s well-being before her own political career. An ungracious person wouldn’t spend her time making long phone calls to supporters, giving them shout-outs at rallies, or spending countless time shaking their hands on rope-lines. It also appears as though Alec Baldwin didn’t get the lefty memo. In October of 2008, after meeting her on the set on SNL, Baldwin describes Palin as “polite” and “gracious.” Oops!

Game Change” also depicts Palin as highly forgetful. Around the 70 minute mark, Mark Wallace tells Steve Schmidt that Palin couldn’t remember “any” of the information he used to prep her for the debate. As it turns out, another Democrat didn’t get the memo. In 2008, former editor in chief of Ms. magazine, Elaine Lafferty wrote:

I’d heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts.Lafferty also said Palin was “smart” and “more than a quick study.” She, however, was not interviewed by “Game Change” screenwriter Danny Strong for the film. Seriously, if you think Palin is stupid, just read her emails. Dumb, mentally unstable people prone to falling into “catatonic stupors” don’t generally work their way up to governor. She did, and she did it all on her own. From top to bottom, the “Palin” character is absolute fiction. She is nothing more than a left-wing day dream of who they wish Palin was.

Lie #8: “Game Change” depicts Palin as unwilling to go on stage with Jeb Bradley because he is pro-choice. At the 92 minute mark of the film, Palin tells a staffer:

There’s no way I’m going on stage with anyone who’s pro-choice.When HBO sends out statements telling people that they “ensure” the “historical accuracy” of the research they conduct, they’re lying. If this woman refused to go on stage with anyone because they’re pro-choice, why did she attend rallies with Joe Lieberman in Pennsylvania and Florida during the campaign? Why did she also allow the L.A. President of NOW to introduceher at yet another rally during the campaign in question? Palin doesn’t ostracize people for having a different opinion than she does. Frankly, that’s more in line with behavior I have come to expect from the left.

Lie #7: The movie suggests Palin wanted to flee Alaska. At the 89 minute mark, Palin whispers into Schmidt’s ear:

I so don’t want to go back to Alaska.Never mind Moore’s horrendous acting; the statement is ridiculous. If Palin “so” wanted to get out of Alaska, why does she still live there? And how exactly do you explain “Sarah Palin’s Alaska”?

Lie #6: At the beginning of the film, McCain’s staff is depicted as searching for a Vice Presidential candidate. The movie clearly tried to suggest that McCain’s team picked Palin because she was a woman. To back up this assertion, around the 10 minute mark in the film, McCain is seen saying, “so find me a woman.” The real Schmidt admits this never happened.

[…..]

Lie #5: The sin of omission regarding the film’s depiction of the “Troopergate” (aka “Tasergate“) investigation certainly qualifies as an egregious lie. The movie briefly mentions it early on, but during a scene at around the 93 minute mark, Schmidt says:

You cannot say that you were cleared of all wrong doing … the report stated that you abused your power. That is the opposite of being cleared of all wrong doing.Really, HBO? And which “report” was that? The report they cite was headed up by Democrats in the Alaska Legislature and known Obama allies during the campaign. It was a political witch hunt, not an honest investigation. In fact, President Barack Obama rewarded State Senator Kim Elton, a longtime friend of Pete Rouse and Chairman of the Legislative Council who released the report, with a fancy job at the Interior Departmentin his administration after the election. It was a shining example of the blatant pay-for-play antics of the Obama administration during the early days.

Something else that HBO purposely leaves out of their movie is that Palin was cleared of all wrongdoing in an independent investigation just before the election in 2008. From the AP:

 A report has cleared Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin of ethics violations in the firing of her public safety commissioner.

Released Monday, the report says there is no probable cause to believe Palin or any other state official violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with the firing. The report was prepared by Timothy Petumenos, an independent counsel for the Alaska Personnel Board.

HBO leaves viewers with the impression that Palin had been found guilty of an ethical lapse, when in reality she had been cleared by the very board legally charged with investigating the matter.

After watching the film, I spoke with Thomas Van Flein, Palin’s attorney throughout both “Troopergate” investigations. Van Flein undoubtedly knows more about this topic than any other person in the country. He told me that HBO never contacted him.

He also reminded me about a statement released by Hollis French, an Alaska Democrat who was also involved in the Branchflower report. French had said openly that due to their actions, the McCain campaign now had “to deal with an October surprise.”
[……]

Lie #4: At approximately the 16 minute mark in the film, while interviewing the faux-Palin, Schmidt says:

Senator McCain supports stem cell research, you do not.While the movie is correct in pointing out that Palin differed with John McCain on the issue (McCain supported federal funding of embryonic stem cell research), they make no distinction between embryonic and adult stem cell research. There is a big difference, and Palin supports adult stem cell research, as she pointed out in her interview with Charlie Gibson:

We’re getting closer and closer to finding a tremendous amount of other options, like, as I mentioned, the adult stem cell research.

[…..]

Lie #2:The movie portrays Palin as an absolute foreign and domestic policy dunce. The things they try to get their audience to believe are not only insulting to Palin but to the intelligence of the people watching. At around the 102 minute mark, while talking about the similarities in Obama and Palin’s charisma, Schmidt says to Rick Davis:

 The primary difference being, Sarah Palin can’t name a Supreme Court decision, whereas Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor.

A. Obama was not a “Constitutional Law Professor.” B. A.B. Culvahouse has also stated on record that the Katie Couric interview left viewers with the “wrong impression” about Palin’s knowledge of the Supreme Court. He said:

She clearly did … My law firm represents Exxon in the Valdez matters,” he noted. “Until she became governor, Gov. Palin was a plaintiff in that case…

[……]

Lie #1: At the 106 minute mark of the film, Schmidt is talking to McCain after the election loss. He appears as though he wants to apologize to McCain but instead apologizes for “suggesting her.” The movie attempts to drive the message home that the primary reason McCain lost was because Palin was on the ticket. That simply isn’t the case.After the selection of Palin for the VP slot, McCain took the lead in national polls. It wasn’t until the economic collapse that the trend started to move the other way. The trend stayed in Obama’s favor due to the manner in which the McCain campaign handled that crisis. The decisions the campaign made did not inspire confidence in the American people, and they were not decisions made by Palin.

After months of research on this movie, this lie was certainly very telling to me. Never before has Schmidt’s motive for talking to the book’s authors and the makers of this movie been more clear. He is trying to absolve himself of responsibility for the bad decisions he (and the Wallaces) made and the campaign they ran. They told their convenient version of events to left-leaning activists in the entertainment industry who loved the lies so much they made a movie out of them. The result is “Game Change.”

Read the rest – Top 10 Lies of HBO’s ‘Game Change’

 

 

 

Tags: , ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

55 Responses to “Sarah Palin as portrayed by her disloyal staff; and Top 10 Lies in HBO’s ‘Game Change’”
( jump to bottom )

  1. buzzsawmonkey
    1 | March 12, 2012 11:44 am

    “OK, palooka; here’s what you’ll get for throwing the title bout against Obama—and we’ll sweeten the pot even more if you take this rising star as your running mate and trash her so badly that she’ll never, ever run for President. First Woman President belongs to Hillary, and we’re willing to pay for it.”


  2. Bob in Breckenridge
    2 | March 12, 2012 11:55 am

    The leftist swine scum in hollywood would resort to lies and distortions about Sarah Palin (or any other conservative)? I’m shocked!!!


  3. Bob in Breckenridge
    3 | March 12, 2012 11:59 am

    BTW, HBO doesn’t even get 1 million viewers per month, so if a bear shits in the forest and no one sees it…


  4. Bob in Breckenridge
    4 | March 12, 2012 12:08 pm

    Also noted is the fact that the average HBO viewer visits the extreme leftist website alternet.org (example of one of their posts- “Invisible Children Funded By Antigay, Creationist Christian Right”) and subscribes to the ultra-libturd rag The New Yorker.


  5. m
    5 | March 12, 2012 12:08 pm

    Critics Erode Credibility with Dishonest ‘Game Change’ Reviews – I wish they did, but unfortunately I don’t believe that. People think “they’re movie reviews! what’s partisan about a movie review?!”

    :roll:

    Obama Fundraising Off Palin Attack


  6. m
    6 | March 12, 2012 12:09 pm

    @ Bob in Breckenridge:

    I was a viewer but cancelled in disgust over Bill Maher years ago. Wish I could cancel again.

    :-/


  7. tunnelrat
    7 | March 12, 2012 12:18 pm

    This movie will not change anybody’s perceptions of the Mc Cain Palin campaign. The only people who will watch this movie are liberals (who ALREADY hate Sarah Palin) and it will reinforce the cliche which they cling to. Conservatives and people who have been paying attention the last four years will not watch it because we expect it to be inaccurate and another ham fisted attempt to destroy the character of a person who is despised by the left.

    We already know why the McCain/Palin ticket lost in 2008, and it was NOT because of Sarah Palin. We allowed the media to set the narrative for our side, which resulted in a terrible candidate for POTUS. McCain ran the most inept campaign in the history of politics, refusing to attack his opponent on any issue whatsoever, and then suspending his campaign to return to Washington (which made him appear to be a flake). He did not win because he did not even try to win. Worst. Candidate. Ever.


  8. m
    8 | March 12, 2012 12:20 pm

    @ tunnelrat:

    He did not win because he did not even try to win. Worst. Candidate. Ever.

    I honestly think he voted for Obama himself.


  9. tunnelrat
    9 | March 12, 2012 12:28 pm

    @ m:

    I honestly think he voted for Obama himself.

    I agree. Same for his wife and that airhead daughter. They got caught up in the same ‘hope and change’ fever that all the leftists did.


  10. 10 | March 12, 2012 12:28 pm

    tunnelrat wrote:

    He did not win because he did not even try to win.

    He practically endorsed Obama instead of saying (at the very least)”You will have to judge my opponent by his very meager record.” He couldn’t bring himself to say anything bad about the Black Jesus®, and so he lost decisively. Romney seems determined to take the same path. I just hope the prospective VP picks (Marco Rubio, I am looking at you) have the sense to stay away from this loser.


  11. Speranza
    11 | March 12, 2012 12:41 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    “OK, palooka; here’s what you’ll get for throwing the title bout against Obama—and we’ll sweeten the pot even more if you take this rising star as your running mate and trash her so badly that she’ll never, ever run for President. First Woman President belongs to Hillary, and we’re willing to pay for it.”

    McCain’s aides were more interested in undermining her then in actually (God forbid) beating Obama.


  12. Speranza
    12 | March 12, 2012 12:42 pm

    Bob in Breckenridge wrote:

    BTW, HBO doesn’t even get 1 million viewers per month, so if a bear shits in the forest and no one sees it…

    Charles Johnson is watching it – which I guess proves your point (i.e. nobody is watching it).


  13. Speranza
    13 | March 12, 2012 12:43 pm

    m wrote:

    I honestly think he voted for Obama himself.

    Well you can be sure that his daughter Meghan and her boobs voted for Obama.


  14. tunnelrat
    14 | March 12, 2012 12:50 pm

    Even Ross Perot ran a better campaign than John McCain did. We must never let
    our party be manipulated by the liberal media ever again.


  15. Speranza
    15 | March 12, 2012 12:51 pm

    Steve Schmidt is one nasty mofo and Nicole Wallace comes across like a Democratic plant.


  16. tunnelrat
    16 | March 12, 2012 12:57 pm

    I would say that the McCain campaign brought a knife to a gunfight, but it was worse than that. McCain showed up blindfolded, strapped to a chair and smoking a cigarette!


  17. 17 | March 12, 2012 1:04 pm

    tunnelrat wrote:

    I would say that the McCain campaign brought a knife to a gunfight, but it was worse than that. McCain showed up blindfolded, strapped to a chair and smoking a cigarette!

    Isn’t that what the North Vietnamese did to him?


  18. 18 | March 12, 2012 1:06 pm

    @ Speranza:

    To the Establishment Republican, defeating the Democrats is not the first priority. Restraining the Base is the first priority. We can’t have those icky conservatives running things. After restraining the base, defeating the Democrats might be nice, but it isn’t a must. YOu can see this on display in the current Romney campaign. It is almost as if Romney wants to sap the enthusiasm out of the base. That is not a formula for victory in November, any more than McCain’s Kum Ba Yah with Obama was. One thing that is sure: the Democrats think defeating the Republicans is job one, and they will do anything to do that. In 2006 they even ran “Conservative” candidates, though in the end Ideology triumphed, and these people mostly pissed on the people that elected them.


  19. waldensianspirit
    19 | March 12, 2012 1:16 pm

    Where are McCain’s campaign hacks now? What new mischief are they up to?


  20. 21 | March 12, 2012 1:21 pm

    m wrote:

    Soledad O’Brien taking a whacking on twitter, LOL!

    Just saw that over at Hot air, Soledad and her guest Dorothy are liar liar pant’s on Fire material.

    From my last Hot Air post on that subject.

    Is this the same Dorothy Brown?

    http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/61-4BrownIntro.pdf

    Matticus Finch on March 12, 2012 at 1:03 PM

    Wow, talk about lying her ass off. Can Dorothy Brown be charged with perjury for lying like that on a news broadcast?

    First, critical race theory seeks to expose the entrenchment of White supremacy and the reality of the continued subordination of people of color in the United States(and throughout the world), and to unravel its relationship with the rule of law.
    More specifically, race crits examine how racial power constitutes and reproduces itself through the apparatuses of law and culture.

    Second, race crits are not satisfied with merely naming and understanding their observations and discoveries; they also are committed to transforming the relationship between law and
    hegemonic racial power in order to destabilize that power.

    Third, like critical legal scholars, race crits continue to reject notions of objectivity and neutrality in the law, and the idea that legal scholarship can and should be so characterized.

    SWalker on March 12, 2012 at 1:15 PM


  21. Speranza
    22 | March 12, 2012 1:23 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    True but we also cannot run people who will get slaughtered in the general election either.


  22. m
    23 | March 12, 2012 1:27 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    One of her guest even had the nerve to ask Joel Pollack why he was afraid of black people. Uhm… only his wife!!!


  23. 24 | March 12, 2012 1:30 pm

    @ Speranza:

    McCain got slaughtered. Romney may get slaughtered. His strategy is to be less awful than Obama, and that may work, but it is a very uncertain strategy. People that will tell a pollster that they prefer Romney to Obama may still not feel so strongly about it that they actually go vote that way. That is the danger of the Romney approach to campaigning.


  24. buzzsawmonkey
    25 | March 12, 2012 1:35 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    McCain’s aides were more interested in undermining her then in actually (God forbid) beating Obama.

    To my mind, the question for some time has not been whether McCain threw the election, but whether part of his deal in throwing it was to destroy the possibility of Palin having a chance to run successfully in the future.


  25. Speranza
    26 | March 12, 2012 1:35 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    McCain got slaughtered. Romney may get slaughtered. His strategy is to be less awful than Obama, and that may work, but it is a very uncertain strategy. People that will tell a pollster that they prefer Romney to Obama may still not feel so strongly about it that they actually go vote that way. That is the danger of the Romney approach to campaigning.

    I don’t think Romney will get slaughtered and he might actually win. Anyway the race will be reminiscent of 2004 – very close. Nominate a Santorum or a Bachmann types and we are looking at a 40 state blowout (like 1988) – for the Democrats! We don’t need a national debate on contraception.


  26. Speranza
    27 | March 12, 2012 1:36 pm

    McCain – as lame as he was – actually was ahead until the September 2008 meltdown and his stupid response to it. Don’t forget that.


  27. buzzsawmonkey
    28 | March 12, 2012 1:36 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    McCain got slaughtered.

    Can you be said to have “gotten slaughtered” if you previously arranged to take a dive?


  28. Speranza
    29 | March 12, 2012 1:37 pm

    Nominate a yahoo who obsesses over abortion, school prayer, family values, etc., watch us lose big.


  29. waldensianspirit
    30 | March 12, 2012 1:39 pm

    While I’m required to pay for stupid old men’s penis pumps we will have a debate about it


  30. Speranza
    31 | March 12, 2012 1:39 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:
    McCain got slaughtered.
    Can you be said to have “gotten slaughtered” if you previously arranged to take a dive?

    Perspective please!
    Considering the half hearted shit campaign he ran, the toxic anti-Bush administration backlash, and that McCain did not even want to win, losing by 7% was not all that bad, it should have been a lot worse.


  31. buzzsawmonkey
    32 | March 12, 2012 1:39 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Nominate a yahoo who obsesses over abortion, school prayer, family values, etc., watch us lose big.

    Go Amphibian!


  32. Speranza
    33 | March 12, 2012 1:40 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    While I’m required to pay for stupid old men’s penis pumps we will have a debate about it

    Should not have to pay for that either – but don’t make it a moral issue (like in the Planned Parenthood debate) make it an economics one.


  33. Bob in Breckenridge
    35 | March 12, 2012 1:44 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Bob in Breckenridge wrote:
    BTW, HBO doesn’t even get 1 million viewers per month, so if a bear shits in the forest and no one sees it…

    Charles Johnson is watching it – which I guess proves your point (i.e. nobody is watching it).

    Speaking of shit…


  34. buzzsawmonkey
    36 | March 12, 2012 1:44 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Perspective please!
    Considering the half hearted shit campaign he ran, the toxic anti-Bush administration backlash, and that McCain did not even want to win, losing by 7% was not all that bad, it should have been a lot worse.

    Part of the skill of a palooka who is good enough to take a dive for the champ is making it look good. McCain was a master palooka—always sabotaging himself as soon as he accidentally managed to pull ahead.

    I remember back at Yertle’s pond the number of people who were screaming in frustration that they could not get McCain bumper stickers and lawn signs, even when they offered to pay for stuff that campaigns normally give away for free. They were trying to counter the tsunami of snazzy graphics that the Obama campaign was papering the country with—and the McCain campaign was basically telling them to fuck off.

    McCain ran a shell campaign designed to lose but “make it look good.” The entire exercise was a show for the rubes. Seeing it in perspective, it makes more sense as an exercise designed to pre-emptively destroy Palin than anything else.


  35. waldensianspirit
    37 | March 12, 2012 1:46 pm

    -16 11.23(with BHO’s numbers)


  36. 38 | March 12, 2012 1:52 pm

    m wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    One of her guest even had the nerve to ask Joel Pollack why he was afraid of black people. Uhm… only his wife!!!

    The shitstorm is only getting started, the twitter traffic is staggering.


  37. 39 | March 12, 2012 1:52 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    And Romney may still pull off a loss. This should be a blow-out election, but that isn’t going to happen. We are going to run a “Least Worst” campaign, and see where that gets us. Personally, I think either way we are fucked. If Romney does manage to pull it out (if he’s even trying; I agree with Buzz’s accessment of McLame), he will be an awful President. There is nothing in his Resume that says otherwise. And he isn[‘t running on his resume, anyway. Just running down the other candidates to make himself look more acceptible. He won’t do that to Obama, so what is he going to do? Lose, I expect…


  38. Bob in Breckenridge
    40 | March 12, 2012 1:53 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    -16 11.23(with BHO’s numbers)

    They need to figure out a way to include the skyrocketing cost of gasoline, which is now the highest ever at this time of the year (and will only go higher as summer “driving season” approaches) into the misery index.


  39. buzzsawmonkey
    42 | March 12, 2012 2:01 pm

    You have to wonder what these guys are selling out for. I can imagine McCain selling out if someone said to him, “You’ve served your country well. You can serve her again if you help the first black president get elected—and in return you’ll get some favorable financial deals and a sinecure job for your no-talent airhead daughter.” I can imagine Romney being convinced that if he runs a soft campaign against Obama then blacks won’t consider the Mormon church racist any more, or something.

    What I can’t do is imagine either of these men running the campaigns that they’ve run if they really wanted to win. They are either monumentally stupid, or were monumentally stupid enough to hire even more monumentally stupid people to advise them. I can almost imagine the latter, as I am still convinced that Perry, who probably would have made a pretty good President, became the World’s Worst Candidate because he was stupid enough, first, to hire someone who told him that the way to win was out-Romney Romney; second, he was stupid enough to listen to that advice; third, and worst, he actually tried to follow it and didn’t shitcan that campaign team.


  40. Bob in Breckenridge
    43 | March 12, 2012 2:03 pm

    m wrote:

    Alabama Democrats scrub Bill Maher fundraiser off website
    Wow.

    Take a look at that pic of that dirtbag POS Ma-whore. He looks like your typical arrogant, smug, know-it-all libturd. And in all honestly, he not nearly as smart of clever as he thinks he is.


  41. Bob in Breckenridge
    44 | March 12, 2012 2:04 pm

    Bob in Breckenridge wrote:

    m wrote:
    Alabama Democrats scrub Bill Maher fundraiser off website
    Wow.

    Take a look at that pic of that dirtbag POS Ma-whore. He looks like your typical arrogant, smug, know-it-all libturd. And in all honestly, he not nearly as smart or clever as he thinks he is.


  42. Bob in Breckenridge
    45 | March 12, 2012 2:08 pm

    In other news-

    ‘Liberal Ladies’ Group Holding Sex Strike: ‘If Our Reproductive Choices Are Denied, So Are Yours’

    I believe they’re doing us all a favor, if you axe me…


  43. RIX
    46 | March 12, 2012 2:11 pm

    I saw the entire movie & in my opinion it was nothing
    but a snarky Hollywood smear job on Palin.
    Lots of private & family things that they could
    not possibly know & other unattributed smears.
    When a project includes Tom Hanks, Ed Harris, Woody
    Harelson & Juliana Moore, odds are that it is just a
    Left Wing hit job.


  44. RIX
    47 | March 12, 2012 2:13 pm

    Bob in Breckenridge wrote:

    In other news-
    ‘Liberal Ladies’ Group Holding Sex Strike: ‘If Our Reproductive Choices Are Denied, So Are Yours’

    I believe they’re doing us all a favor, if you axe me…

    Oh I don’t know, Helen Thomas is kind of cute./


  45. buzzsawmonkey
    48 | March 12, 2012 2:14 pm

    @ Bob in Breckenridge:

    Frightening to see how much Helen Thomas looks like Danny DeVito made up as the Penguin.

    Maybe DeVito can play her in the “Helen Thomas Story” tribute film…


  46. 49 | March 12, 2012 2:14 pm

    @ Bob in Breckenridge:

    I wouldn’t fuck ‘em with your dick… 8O


  47. Bob in Breckenridge
    50 | March 12, 2012 2:18 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    @ Bob in Breckenridge:
    Frightening to see how much Helen Thomas looks like Danny DeVito made up as the Penguin.
    Maybe DeVito can play her in the “Helen Thomas Story” tribute film…

    Opening soon at theaters all over the West Bank and Gaza strip.


  48. Bob in Breckenridge
    51 | March 12, 2012 2:18 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Bob in Breckenridge:
    I wouldn’t fuck ‘em with your dick…

    Hey, leave him outta this!


  49. buzzsawmonkey
    52 | March 12, 2012 2:19 pm

    @ Bob in Breckenridge:

    Those saints of the Left really put the “hag” in “hagiography”…


  50. Bob in Breckenridge
    53 | March 12, 2012 2:34 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    @ Bob in Breckenridge:
    Those saints of the Left really put the “hag” in “hagiography”…

    Okay, I had to look up that word. :)


  51. waldensianspirit
    54 | March 12, 2012 3:59 pm

    And for me, the experience on this campaign is that there are worse things than losing.”

    Mike Barnicle pressed Schmidt on what he meant by that.

    “When a result happens that puts someone who is not prepared to be president on the ticket, that’s a bad result,” Schmidt added. “I think the notion of Sarah Palin being President of the United States is something that frightens me, frankly.


  52. 55 | March 12, 2012 9:58 pm

    I have watched “Game Change” in its entirety.

    It is typical Liberal cliches about stoopid conservtives.

    The problem is that we will continue to have to watch this garbage until we can have screenwriters of our own doing Conservative, pro American films.

    Ben Shapiro, in his most recent book, made this point.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David