An anti-Palin screed somehow ended up on Psychology Today’s website. I know, I know, it’s shocking that Psychology Today could sponsor something that is less science than it is PC, hatespeak against conservatives, what with psychology being so scientific and all — but, there you have it. Penned by one Bella DePaulo, the piece really has little worth as a work of science and is little but a political rant filled with name calling and hate for Governor Sarah Palin and anyone that might support her. In the piece Palin is termed a “special liar” by the writer and conservatives are painted as willfully ignorant, knuckle dragging troglodytes.

As I mentioned, DePaulo originally posted her political hit piece at the website of Psychology Today but has since moved the piece to the Huffington Post apparently because the PT website was getting slammed by complaints — and rightfully so.

I have to say the move to the HuffPo was a good one. After all, as little worth as the “science” of psychology offers the world, HuffPo offers even less so and that is precisely where this dreck of DePaulo’s belongs.

Now in place of her original piece at the PT website DePaulo posted a rambling lament that Palin’s supporters dared to attack her hatespeak. She whines that people are mean to her there. She whines that comments were so bellicose. She whines so much I’d suggest she change her name to Bellow DeWino! Jeeze. Give it a rest lady.

So who is this DePaulo? Bella DePaulo is a “social psychologist” that fancies herself an expert on liars. That she fancies herself such an expert is somewhat amusing seeing as how her status of being a “social psychologist” must give her ample opportunity to employ a tale or two on how legitimate her Ph.D. is. The legitimacy of social psychology aside, DePaulo’s chief area of interest is singles, or the unmarried. In other words, she is an opponent of marriage.

So what did she say about Palin?

From my post as an outside observer, it seems to me that Sarah Palin doesn’t care much about the truth. In that way, she is a very special liar. Instead, Palin seems to love the effect her disingenuous pronouncements have on her audiences and so she just runs with them. Her fans adore her claims about “death panels” and about Obama supposedly “palling around with terrorists” and all the rest. Look at how they roar with approval and fervor when she tosses that red, bloody moose meat to them – how can the mere (non) truth-value of what she is saying ever compete with that? Plus, the fact that her taunts drive her detractors over the edge – well, that just adds to the fun!

Sarah Palin seems to relish the reaction she gets to her claims and complaints. Among her core fan base, the theme that the mean media and the full-of-themselves campaign staffers were unfair to noble, authentic, small-town Sarah seems to be a winner. Whether it is really true is almost irrelevant.

It is interesting that DePaulo uses the “pals around with terrorists” and “death panels” lines as examples of Palin’s “lies.” After all, both are true. Obama IS a close personal friend of domestic terrorist William Ayers and his horrid, murderous spouse Bernadine Dohren and the government bureaucrats that will decide who is allowed to get medical care after Obamacare is passed are easily termed “death panels” since they will be the ones to say who will be allowed to get medical care and who won’t. That necessarily entails that someone won’t get healthcare by government fiat and will, therefore, DIE as a result. That is a perfect description of a death panel, wouldn’t you say?

What DePaulo has to say about Palin, though, isn’t nearly as interesting as all her whining she has since added to her posts, the one at Psychology Today and HuffPo both. She is such a whiner that it simply amazes. Everyone is out to get her, it seems.

If you want to read about “psychology” DePaulo’s two postings is very worthwhile reading. It reveals a petty, whiney, self-important, prima donna with an over developed sense of superiority who displays just a tinge of paranoia. Now THERE is some “psychology” well revealed.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Senator John McCain’s future in the U.S. Senate may be a little less assured than previously thought.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely 2010 Republican Primary voters in Arizona finds the longtime incumbent in a virtual tie with potential challenger J.D. Hayworth. McCain earns 45% of the vote, while Hayworth picks up 43%.

Former Minuteman leader Chris Simcox gets four percent (4%) support, while two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate and seven percent (7%) are undecided.

Hayworth, a conservative former U.S. congressman who now is a popular radio talk show host in Phoenix, is reportedly interested in the race but has not formally declared for it.

John McCain ran a disastrous campaign last year. He could have won and been President McCain — I truly believe this — were it not for his own bungling. The stars did not align perfectly for Obama. There were plenty of mistakes made by the Obama campaign, plenty of cards McCain could have played. But his Democrat-Lite reputation pissed off a lot of people in his own party, and he made tons of mistakes. It no doubt left a sour taste in many voters’ mouths. And with amnesty about to rear its ugly head again, I’m not surprised that Arizona voters are considering kicking him to the curb.

Bill Kristol and AllahPundit are floating the possibility of Sarah Palin coming to bail him out. Allah goes over the reasons that this would be politically advantageous for Palin, but frankly, I hope she doesn’t. First, in my opinion, it’s high time we get rid of John McCain. He’s a giant squish who has made a career out of pissing off Republicans as much as possible. We need to be weeding out the RINOs right now, not doing everything we can to help them retain their seats. Second, Palin was treated abysmally by the McCain campaign staff. They handcuffed her, gagged her, and then once the campaign was over, abandoned her and then stabbed her in the back. McCain may himself have not said or done anything, but he looked the other way while it happened and certainly didn’t come to her defense. He is a brave, courageous man in many aspects, but in this one, he was a coward. Sarah Palin was a risky choice for him. He’s the maverick, the one who relishes being the media darling. I don’t think he enjoyed being hammered in the media, and she certainly didn’t lighten that load for him. He plucked her out of relative obscurity, and then left her to be fed to the wolves. Yet now, she’s supposed to come and bail him out? She’s a rising star; he’s an old has-been. He’ll probably need her help, and if I was Sarah Palin, I wouldn’t give it. The only downfall is it makes her look petty and vindictive. I would think the best move for her would be to endorse neither candidate and make some kind of non-committal statement about how McCain is a great person and not say much more.

Of course, Allah’s predicting that McCain will be too stubborn and prideful to go begging for her help. If he won’t, then it eliminates the burden off of her shoulders. Hopefully, that’s exactly what happens, and McCain fades into obscurity after this election cycle. His career’s frankly gone on way too long.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Sen. Claire McCaskill on Thursday touted the Senate healthcare reform bill by taking a dig at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s new book.

McCaskill (D) said if the bill was printed in regular size font, it would be the same length as Palin’s (R) memoir Going Rogue: An American Life “but with more meat on the bone.” She tweeted:

If we printed the health care bill in regular size font it would be same legnth as Sarah Palin’s book, but with more meat on the bone.

The Senate healthcare bill is 2,074 pages long. Palin’s book is 413 pages long with 16 pages of photographs.

Best comment at the source

Senator McCaskill would do well to remember that no one is being asked to suffer under the yoke of the contents of Sarah Palin’s book. Nor will they be forced, against their will, and at perhaps great financial cost, to abide by the contents therein. Methinks Senator McCaskill should probably speak less, and listen, (to the American people), more. Dusan on 11/19/2009 at 22:32

Can’t add anything to that.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Going Rogue is going gangbusters, and it looks like both Palin and her publisher, HarperCollins, are going to make some serious money off of it. According to industry insiders, Palin got a $7 million advance for her book. She’s earning a royalty rate of 15 percent, which means she makes $4.35 per book sold, and therefore needs to sell 1.6 million books to earn out her advance. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that HarperCollins had printed another 100,000 copies of Going Rogue, bringing the total in print to 1.6 million. Palin would need to sell all of those to earn out her advance, so it’s unlikely that’s going to happen.

But HarperCollins will be making money long before that. There’s a rule of thumb in the industry that publishers net about $10 per hardcover sold, after expenses, but before the cost of the advance. Once she’s sold 700,000 copies, then, HarperCollins is in the black. And what of that 1.6 million printed? An ideal “sell-through” rate is about 75 percent, which means HarperCollins thinks it’s going to sell about 1.2 million copies. At that level, Palin will have made $7 million and HarperCollins $5 million of its own.

A HarperCollins insider told The Daily Beast that the book sold a staggering 300,000 copies on the first day alone, which was Tuesday. “Sales are phenomenal, and we are convinced that the book will continue to sell phenomenally for some time to come,” says the insider. They’re not prevaricating: As of 2:30pm today, the book was #1 on Amazon, ahead of both Stephen King’s new novel, Under the Dome, and Dan Brown’s The Lost Symbol. The latter sold 1 million copies on its first day, but that figure included the UK, and top fiction generally trumps non-fiction. Any way you carve it, Going Rogue looks to be a $12 million goldmine.

On top of that, her favorables are rising.

As Sarah Palin blankets the media on a whirlwind book promotion tour, the former vice-presidential contender is clearly back on America’s radar screen. Despite being characterized by many as a divisive force in her party and the nation, Americans are much more likely to give Palin a positive rating (47 percent favorable) than another prominent female leader — Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (28 percent favorable). Moreover, about six in 10 Americans (61 percent) think Palin has been treated unfairly by the press, according to the latest Fox News poll.

Something tells me that the longer Democrats are in power, the more likeable Sarah Palin is going to be to Americans. Love her or hate her (and I love her), you cannot deny that she is on fire right now. 1500 people waited in the freezing cold to meet her. There’s even polling showing that, if the 2012 presidential race were held today, and Palin was running against Obama, they’d basically be in a dead heat among independents, the most important block of voters later. The mainstream media may try to demean and diminish her, but her star is clearly rising. And unless Obama suddenly turns into some kind of fiscal hawk overnight (not likely), she’s just going to keep looking better and better.

2012 is looking like a better and better year.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

We just received in our email box the Associated Press working files on the following story…

Palin’s Daughter Arrested in Wasilla for Dangerous Drunk Driving

(AP) WASILLA, ALASKA — The daughter of failed Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was arrested Thursday in Wasilla for driving drunk.

Bristol Palin, 19, was stopped by officers at about 12:40 a.m. and booked after rude behavior at the Wasilla police station for driving under the influence.

She was held for about five hours and released at about 5:30 a.m. after posting $5,000 bail, officials said.

Bristol Palin is the eldest daughter of failed Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and could be responsible for the loss of Republican John McCain’s bid for president in 2006. After it was discovered she was pregnant out of wedlock, the doomed Palin GOP bid for vice president suffered repeated scandals. Governor Palin was thought to have been a book banner in Wasilla and it was reported that her son, Trig, was really Bristol’s child.

The hypocrisy of the Palin campai….

Wait…

This just in….

Hold on, new facts have come to light. To our newspaper customers, please ignore the last story and substitute this one:

Sen. Kerry’s innocent daughter arrested in LA on DUI

(AP) LOS ANGELES — The daughter of Sen. John Kerry was arrested Thursday in Hollywood for allegedly driving drunk.

Alexandra Kerry, 36, was stopped by officers at about 12:40 a.m. and booked at the Hollywood police station for investigation of driving under the influence, Officer April Harding said.

She was held for about five hours and released at about 5:30 a.m. after posting $5,000 bail, Harding said.

She had no other details but we are sure that John Kerry’s daughter is wholly innocent of these scurrilous charges.

That is all.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

That photo was taken from a shoot she did for Runner’s World magazine. Sarah Palin’s response was to denounce it as sexist. Many people — including some conservatives — said that she was overreacting. She did, after all, willingly pose for Runner’s World, and didn’t have a problem with the pictures then. Many people said that she’s had no problem being sexy before, that she liked the sexy picture used on the cover before too. So what right does she have to be upset now?

Here’s the thing: I don’t particularly see a picture of Sarah Palin posing for a spread in a magazine about health and fitness as her “flaunting” her sexuality. Because she’s a female politician, does that mean she’s not allowed to show off her legs now? For chrissakes, she’s wearing a long-sleeve shirt with no cleavage and running shoes. But — ZOMG! — she willingly allowed herself to be photographed in shorts, so she must be asking for it!! It really pisses me off to see even conservatives saying that a “serious politician” wouldn’t have posed for such a picture.

Give me a freaking break. I am sick to death of professional politicians. I want a real person representing me in Washington, DC. Real women wear sneakers and short shorts when they run. Neither men nor women wake up fully dressed in business attire, complete with a tie for men or hose and heels for women. Real people are multidimensional, and I don’t see a single problem with Sarah Palin wearing fitness attire for a freaking fitness magazine. Can politicians not be real people now? Have we really sunk that low? I don’t see why, once you become a politician, you are now required to appear in public only in business wear. I mean, what happens when Sarah Palin is actually running? Must she run in a three piece suit complete with heels and hose on the off chance that a photographer might take a picture of her? I like the fact that there is more to Sarah than just politics, and I don’t see a damn thing wrong with the pictures from her Runner’s World spread. I don’t see anything wrong with politicians being multi-faceted. It’s not a dichotomy. You can be both smart, and sexy; political and beautiful. I don’t understand the meme that politicians can’t willingly appear in fitness attire, that they can’t willingly be attractive, that they can’t willingly be sexy. I think that thought process might piss me off more than the actual Newsweek cover itself.

Now, I don’t think the Newsweek editors were trying to be sexist, necessarily. If Sarah Palin were a man, they’d run an equally demeaning cover. They were looking to make a statement, and it wasn’t, Oooh, Sarah Palin is sexy!. It was to demean her, to make her look unprofessional and unofficial, to reduce her to nothing more than a sexy pair of legs. The point of the cover was to diminish her in any way possible, and because she’s a woman, going after her looks was an obvious choice. They wanted an unflattering image, and while it might be a physically flattering picture of her, the Newsweek editors were hoping to leave a politically unflattering image for the cover, which is why they chose it. They don’t like her politics. You don’t see Newsweek covers of Barack and Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton looking sexy, because they want a different image for them: strong, smart, capable, accomplished. Look at these examples:

And don’t think that any of these people haven’t willingly posed for photos that aren’t like Palin’s Runner’s World photos. Remember the pictures Bill and Hillary staged after the Lewinsky scandal? They were desperate to look united, desperate to convince everyone that they were a husband and wife who would make it through the struggle, desperate to look romantic and still in love. So, we got these gag-worthy photos which would never be made the cover of Newsweek:

Remember the tabloid frenzy when Obama was snapped at the beach? The tabloid magazines, along with much of the media, was drooling over his “bronzed pecs” or “sculpted abs” or some such nonsense. But of course, a serious publication like Newsweek would never show Obama as anything less than strong, wise, and divine.

As for his fashion plate First Lady, Michelle Obama didn’t always used to be so glamorous. But again, Newsweek would never show Michelle Obama as anything less than beautiful, fashionable, and glamorous. A minute of Googling, and I was able to find this photo that would never be a Newsweek cover:

There are plenty of reasons why Newsweek used the Runner’s World photo of Sarah Palin, and never one of the photos above. Was it sexism? I don’t think so. It’s just another typical attack on a conservative by a liberal publication, desperate to do anything they can to diminish their intelligence and influence.

Cross posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

President Barack Obama’s approval rating has fallen below 50 percent for the first time in polling by Quinnipiac University as U.S. voter discontent grows over the war in Afghanistan.
Obama’s job approval rating fell to 48 percent in the Nov. 9-16 survey of registered voters nationwide by the Hamden, Connecticut-based university, with 42 percent polled saying they disapproved of the job he is doing.
“In politics, symbols matter, and this is not a good symbol for the White House,” Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a statement.
Obama’s approval rating was 59 percent in a Quinnipiac survey conducted Feb. 25 to March 2.

Here are the details:

Economy: 43/52, 47/46 in October – independents 38/58
Foreign policy: 49/42, 49/37 in October – independents 45/49
Afghanistan: 38/49, 42/40 in October – inds 30/57

He can’t make a decision on Afghanistan, he bows to Communist dictators, pushing an unpopular socialist healthcare takeover, the National debt tops $12 trillion, and he is allowing stupid decisions like the 911 conspirators get a show trial. None of this can be helping much, and he isn’t near his bottom yet. He and the Democrats are losing Independents fast. At least some Dems are recognizing it!

Mounting evidence that independent voters have soured on the Democrats is prompting a debate among party officials about what rhetorical and substantive changes are needed to halt the damage.

Following serious setbacks with independents in off-year elections earlier this month, White House officials attributed the defeats to local factors and said President Barack Obama sees no need to reposition his own image or the Democratic message.

Since then, however, a flurry of new polls makes clear that Democrats are facing deeper problems with independents—the swing voters who swung dramatically toward the party in 2006 and 2008 but who now are registering deep unease with the amount of spending and debt called for under Obama’s agenda in an era of one-party rule in Washington.

A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.

Meanwhile Sarah Palin gives Oprah her highest ratings in two years…even higher than when Obama was on! 1500 people waited in the freezing weather for her autograph! She is making an impact and making her critics sweat. The pendalum is swinging!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Early on the morning of Governor Sarah Palin’s book release day, USA Today’s The Oval blog posted a piece asking who was more qualified to be president, Clinton or Palin. Naturally, instead of using an image of Sarah Palin’s book cover to illustrate the story, USA Today used the attack book against Palin that mimics Palin’s cover in a cynical bid to confuse readers on which book is which.

We are left wondering about USA Today. Were they just stupid, not knowing that there was an attack book making itself look like Palin’s book? Or did the folks at USA Today know full well that they were posting an image of the attack book’s cover and not Palin’s actual book?

Here is a screen capture of the original page.

After multiple complaints, USA Today did end up changing the image later in the morning to the proper book cover image with an “erratum.”

ERRATUM: An earlier posting featured the photo of a different Sarah Palin book. The Oval regrets the error.

I’m sure they regret getting caught. Not really sure if they regret the error.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Mark Kirk is denying that he’s trying to angle rightward in the run up to the GOP primary next year with his recent reaching out to Governor Sarah Palin to secure her endorsement for his candidacy.

“I think I am who I am. I am a social moderate, fiscal conservative. But this is a big race and we are building a broad coalition and it will be, for a Republican candidacy, a center-right coalition, but for me, I haven’t changed my views.”

This is, of course, rather interesting. Kirk is reaching out to conservatives by courting one of their idols in Sarah Palin, yet is also claiming he hasn’t changed his views. It makes one wonder just why a conservative would want to vote for him if he isn’t even interested in paying lip service to their causes?

In essence, Kirk is saying vote for me… and I’ll ignore all you stand for. After all Kirk’s record is more often center left than center right.

Kirk is rated poorly by the National Right to Life Committee and nearly 100% by abortion supporters. The NRA has awarded him a grade of “D.” The American Conservative Union rates him at 40% for 2007 and 48% for 2008. On jobs the CATO Institute gives him an even 50% saying his record is mixed. And in one of his stronger areas, on taxes Kirk is rated only at 58% by the National Taxpayers Union. As you can see, these hot button, conservative issues put him mostly in the center left category, not center right.

So, it is amusing that Kirk is claiming to be seeking the vote of that “center right coalition” yet also says he won’t change his positions in order to attract their support!

Who exactly is Kirk trying to kid? He’d elicit more respect for himself if he just said that he’ll support the center right position a little less than half the time but that any Democrat won’t even be that weighted to the right. Let’s be honest here. Mark Kirk is a center left candidate, not a center right one.

But, for sure his Democrat opponent is a left/far left candidate. Kirk will be on the side of conservatives more so than the Democrat, but he is positively no center right guy. It’s just that simple.

In the end, there really is no reason at all for Sarah Palin to endorse Mark Kirk before the primary. Maybe, to be a good party member, she’ll endorse him after the primaries when there is no conservative choice. But before the primary there is no reason at all for a conservative minded person to support Mark Kirk.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Just hearing her name causes me pain and normally I wouldn’t waste a minute’s time worrying about what this vacuous little child has to say on much of anything — as is evidenced by the fact that this is the first time my keyboard has shuddered out her name. However, Meghan McCain’s latest blog post is a piece of conventional wisdom that, while not unique to little Meaggie’s fallow mind (which itself is de rigeuer for the girl, sadly), it is one that has been heard since the day women began to stride into the world of western politics. However, it is one that I think no longer applies. So, I’d like to address the empty reasoning on women in politics despite that it emanated from McCain’s somewhat barren pen.

Here is McCain’s prosaic premise: The attacks on Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have made it harder for women and is proof that no woman will ever be “just right” for politics. To which anyone not looking to make excuses can only say a resounding “yeah, right.”

The simple matter of fact is that anyone that clamors for great power will stir great passions in those whom they wish to govern. And those that find wide support among the people will find that such support is ephemeral once decisions start having to be made. It doesn’t matter if the powerful is man or woman.

Let’s take General George Washington, for instance. He was the Father of our country, we all know. When he first deigned to accept the title of our first president his approval rating would most assuredly have been in the upper reaches of the 90th percentile range should early Americans have had the misfortune to have had nation-wide polling services like Zogby or Pew Research in the 1780s.

But even as he took his seat at the head of the nation the grumbling began. It wasn’t long before much of the good will he had truly earned as the general that won our independence began to wear thin, replaced by rumors of his doddering mental state, his purported lack of intellect, and his detached unconcern for his nation. The sniping got so bad that President Washington almost refused to run for a second term and always preferred to be called general instead of Mr. President. Save James Monroe, few presidents since have ever enjoyed an “era of good feeling” without the poison pen of his enemies nipping at his heels.

And this is true of any great leader. It’s been true of Senators, Speakers of the House, presidents, generals and statesmen all over the world and throughout time.

For her part, McCain worries that the constant and virulent attacks on Palin and Clinton is emblematic of how women are unduly attacked in the political realm. She terms it “misogyny” and feels it’s a “double standard” exclusively used against powerful women. Finally she feels that these illicit and unusual attacks will only serve to keep young women from an interest in politics.

The reality is, however, that only one thing is used against women that isn’t used against men: physical looks. Clinton is too ugly, Palin too pretty, so they say, but looks are rarely held against male politicians. If they were Henry Waxman could never have been elected, even to such a lowly position as dog catcher. So, yes, there is one thing unfairly used against female candidates. But is this really such a major factor as to make it so much harder for women to have successful political careers than for men? I, for one, don’t see it.

Long gone are the days when a female politician was looked upon as derelict in the duties of femininity for seeking office. Gone are the days when men considered politics not something women were “allowed” to join. It isn’t 1920 any longer.

But there is still this whiny notion that women have a tougher time in politics merely because they are women. I say pish tosh to that notion. Women of strong opinion are no worse treated than men of strong opinion. Ask George W. Bush if he thinks he gets an easier way cleared for him because he was born a George instead of a Georgina! Ask anyone if they think Teddy “the Swimmer” Kennedy was less virulently opposed by the right merely because he was a fella!

No, I believe we have soared past the time when women in politics were eschewed merely because they were women. Women have achieved equality with men in every way that matters in the political arena. Now we can rejoice because we can hate Hillary Clinton because she is a closet Marxist. We are free from having to worry if she’s woman enough to be allowed to run for office. The left can attack Governor Palin because they feel she is an idiot and they don’t have to worry if her gentler, female side will make her too weak to be a politician.

We no longer have to hate a woman solely for her gender. Now, at long last, we can hate her because of her ideas. Now THAT is progress!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post