By Jeremy
This attempted takedown of long-time target Tracee Hutchison is one of tim’s more pathetic recent efforts:
Sarah Palin isn’t backing down, writes Traceeee* Hutchison:
Far from retreating to Wasilla’s world-famous hockey fields …
Ice hockey is generally played indoors, at a rink. Via Dylan Kissane, who also notes that Traceeee thinks the election is held on November 5 – and that, towards the end of her column, Ms Hutchison actually begins making some sense.
First, hockey is played on fields – even, occasionally, ice hockey – and in any case Hutchison never specified the ice variety. Secondly, her article was posted at The Age, an Australian newspaper, and – since the US is almost a day behind us – the US election will still definitely be taking place on 5th November, Australian time. (Since tim has just flown to the US, you’d think he’d be aware of the time difference.)
So Tracee was not at all wrong, and the attempted gotcha falls completely flat.
I’m not sure what tim was trying to achieve here, but I reckon it’s just made him look like a goose.
*Blair objects to being referred to as “Timmeh”, but takes childish delight in extending Tracee’s name every time he mentions her (which is disturbingly regularly, come to think of it) with a couple more “eeee”s…
UPDATE: I just don’t think he’s trying any more.
Fox News, for example, reported that John McCain conceded on 4th November:
tim doesn’t get around to noting it until 3.33pm on 5th November, having previously uploaded a full FOURTEEN posts regarding the US election dated 5th November without mentioning McCain’s concession at least thirteen and a half hours before:
If you didn’t know better, you’d have to conclude that the election didn’t just take place on 5th November in Tracee time – it was 5th November tim Blair time, too.
214 Comments
2 November, 2008 at 9:24 am
timmys whole being has been thrown off kilter with palin. he’s totally fucking obsessed with her and views any criticsm of her as personal, doesn’t matter how insignificant. his catchcry has been “she’s inside their heads”, yeah well it’s pretty obvious to anyone whose read his blog since palin come onto the scene that she’s inside his groin.
2 November, 2008 at 9:43 am
Palin will make a great news anchor.
2 November, 2008 at 11:51 am
…and an even better waitress.
And Timmeh should stop being pedantic.
2 November, 2008 at 6:20 pm
From Blair’s recent post THE A-Z OF THE US ELECTION: “• The biggest story of the past few weeks: Sarah Palin’s massive CLOTHES budget. I join with political observers of all persuasions in demanding that the attractive Alaska governor wear far fewer clothes.”
What more needs to be said.
2 November, 2008 at 9:44 pm
“What more needs to be said.”
inside his groin.
3 November, 2008 at 8:07 am
Jeremy,
Did you read Tracee’s column? The only reference to a date is:
“And if pre-polling interviews are any indication, then November 6 is shaping as day one of Sarah Palin’s 2012 presidential campaign.”
Tracee is obviously making the point that day after the election will be Sarah’s first day campaigning for the next election. There can be no suggestion that Tracee is referring to an Australia date here, as it is a reference to Sarah Palin’s actions.
So there can only be 2 conclusions, either:
(a) Tracee thinks that Sarah Palin will take a day off after the election and then start campaiging on 6 November; or
(b) Tracee thinks that the election is on November 5.
I cannot find anything to support the first proposition. Therefore Tim’s conclusion that Tracee thinks that November 5 is the election day is more than likely.
By the way, ice hockey is played on ice rinks, not fields. You’d never be able to get the ice to an acceptable level of consistency on open ground.
The reference to “world famous hockey fields”, is, presumably, a reference to Sarah Palin’s comments about being a “hockey mum”. That appears to be in relation to ice hockey, not field hockey – at least from Sarah’s wikipedia article.
3 November, 2008 at 8:38 am
Ah…pedantry.
Where would the Right be without it?
3 November, 2008 at 8:52 am
Nic, that’s even lamer than tim’s gotcha.
The election IS on November 5, Australian time. QED.
3 November, 2008 at 8:59 am
I’m sorry, Jeremy – but your interpretation of that paragraph in Tracee’s article is simply wrong. There is no way that Tracee is talking about Australian time – no way at all. It makes absolutely no sense to be talking in Australian time when referring to Sarah Palin’s actions.
3 November, 2008 at 9:02 am
Dbd,
This whole site is dedicated to pedantry. Revel in the gloriousness of me criticising Jeremy criticising Tim’s criticising of Tracee’s article.
3 November, 2008 at 9:04 am
oh well nic, you’d better get onto the australian – they advertise as 5/11 also. you should tell them to put in brackets 4/11 US to the pedants out there don’t think its the stupid australian meeja who don’t understand when the US goes to the polls.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
3 November, 2008 at 9:06 am
Actually, it isn’t in any way devoted to “pedantry”. This particular post is mocking tim’s pedantry, particularly since it’s wrong, but that word does not describe the rest of the site.
As to your last comment – “there is no way that Tracee is talking about Australian time”? She’s writing in Australia. For an Australian audience. Of course she’s referring to Australian time.
3 November, 2008 at 9:09 am
I disagree Nic.
I thought this site was about holding a pair of lying, cynical arseholes to account.
3 November, 2008 at 9:14 am
“There is no way that Tracee is talking about Australian time – no way at all.”
And you would know because????????? Maybe you’re Tracee posing as a wing nut, after all your acting like an utter pedantic, Palin loving wing nut!
“This whole site is dedicated to pedantry.”
But you’re being pedantic, hence you’re a hypocritical wing nut.
Hey, It’s Monday morning, I’m grumpy, I have toothache, I’ll lash out at the stupid Palin lovers…
3 November, 2008 at 9:19 am
Bolt tries to gotcha his arch nemesis Glenn Milne today. http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/burned_out_babies/
Milne reports that beaurocrats are saying the Government is dysfunctional. Bolt interprets this as Milne is saying the Rudd government is dysfunctional. This illustrates the way Bolt “reports” on politics more than anything about Glenn Milne.
3 November, 2008 at 9:20 am
Jeremy,
Tracee is clearly writing about Sarah Palin’s actions – which will occur in the US. Does any Australian paper ever refer to the events of 12 September 2001? Or refer to the well known American holiday of 5 July?
Clearly Tim is right and you are wrong on this point.
RobJ – I don’t love Sarah Palin. She seems nice enough, but I’m not convinced she is a suitable VP candidate. For what it is worth, my favoured candidate was Hilary Clinton.
3 November, 2008 at 9:23 am
I think the Cons are actually secretly seething at what their own parties have served up to them in the way of candidates in recent times. They’ve had to spend their time in the blogosphere trying to justify the likes of Nelson and Turnbull here and Bush, McCain and Palin in the USA.
Little wonder they’re so cranky and end up looking decidedly foolish and childish trying to dump on Rudd: Take note, Bolt; The way your blog has given over to become the centre of Rudd-hating only leaves you looking like a surly, obsessive, stalker.
Get a life and do your job with at least the tiniest degree of professionalism!
3 November, 2008 at 9:23 am
“Tracee is clearly writing about Sarah Palin’s actions – which will occur in the US. Does any Australian paper ever refer to the events of 12 September 2001? Or refer to the well known American holiday of 5 July?”
More pedantry….. Pathetic wingnuttery…..
3 November, 2008 at 9:24 am
“She seems nice enough”
Seems a bit of a twat to me….. A
3 November, 2008 at 9:29 am
RobJ,
Good on you. Your contributions to this thread are amazing. Your use of the full stop key is exquisite. Again, good on you.
3 November, 2008 at 9:53 am
Thanks – At least I haven’t been sucked in by the hype surrounding Sarah Palin. Nice Lady – LOL.
3 November, 2008 at 9:55 am
Bottom line Nic – you’re claiming to know for a fact that Tracee was referring to American dates when you simply can’t know that. You’re categorically declaring Tim right and Tracee wrong based on an educated guess and nothing more.
However, in general, I tend to agree that this post is a bit of a stretch. I mean “in any case Hutchison never specified the ice variety.? Come on – we’re talking Palin here. Her “Hockey Mom” comments have always been a reference to ice hockey.
3 November, 2008 at 10:11 am
Mondo,
I shouldn’t be to be too harsh on Tracee. You never know whether the date was changed by a sub-editor automatically updating all dates to Australian time.
She actually makes a very good point that some criticism of Sarah Palin may be solely referable to her being a woman.
3 November, 2008 at 10:21 am
The point is that she was NOT wrong, and tim’s attempt to mock her for it backfired.
3 November, 2008 at 10:27 am
Jeremy,
We’ll have to disagree with respect to the date. Do you concede, though, that Tim was correct with respect to the “hockey fields”?
I note that Tim could also have picked her up on this line:
“America, after all, has a proud history of burning white women at the stake so it’s not as though discrimination and recrimination have been exclusive to colour.”
Charitably, she is referring to the Salem witch trials, but no one was burnt at the stake there.
3 November, 2008 at 10:42 am
Tim could have “picked her up” on any number of lines but in doing so would only have served to highlight just how worthless he is.
As you say Nic – Tracee makes some valid and interesting points in her writing, yet all the Rightards like Blair and Bolt can do is make pedantic critcisms about dates. No engaging substantive points for Tim – no, he’s much happier focusing his analysis on whether hockey has ‘fields’ or ‘rinks’.
Blair’s contribution to Australia’s political discourese really is pathetic.
3 November, 2008 at 10:58 am
To resolve this time discrepancy, I propose amalgamating all time zones into one. That would dispel any uncertainty and give Nic better to banter about.
3 November, 2008 at 11:14 am
By focusing of this sort of pedantic bullshit, they can distract themselves from the embarrasing joke that the Repugs have become.
Apparently, McCain went on TV with a Palin look alike, effectively mocking his own running mate, and his own campaign.
I must admit to a certain amount of pleasure in watching how frantic the Right are getting, the closer we get to the election.
Understandable, i guess.
With the loss of power and credibility here in Oz, the almost inevitable rout in the US election, and the collapse and failure of neocon economic policy/ideology, everything they believe in is falling down around them.
But at least they know they are Right.
3 November, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Isn’t it time for McCain/Palin to stop pulling their punches?
If they’re going to win, they need to bell the cat.
We all know what it is – forget this nonsense about Obama “paling around with terrorists”. It’s much worse than that.
Just look at Obama – tall with a slim physique. Does he remind you of anyone? No? Well try putting a beard on him and a turban thingy.
When did Obama show up? – just a few years ago. And when was the last time anyone saw…..bin Laden!!!
You see, it all makes sense now doesn’t it? He thought that changing one letter in his name would fool us. Think again Osama Obama!
We need to let people know, and if McCain won’t – surely Andrew Bolt can do it. A last minute blog post revealing this audacious attempt by al-Qaeda to infiltrate the Oval Office.
Come on Andrew, save the free world!
3 November, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Good point mike.
I think we all need to be very afraid…
3 November, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Mondo: “Blair’s contribution to Australia’s political discourse really is pathetic.”
It really is, isn’t it Mondo? It’s nothing more than partisan, childish drivel. His performance on Insiders a couple of weeks ago should ensure that he is never invited back, but I’m sure it won’t. I just cannot fathom how a man so devoid of insight, wit, intelligence, knowledge or skill of any kind got himself into such a position. He reminds me of nothing more than the opinionated, boorish, irritating relative that you only put up with for the sake of politeness at Christmas time.
3 November, 2008 at 2:50 pm
I’m no fan of Tracee but I knew she meant the 5 November AUSTRALIAN time. Why? As has been pointed out – she’s an Australian columnist, writing in an Australian paper, for an Australian audience.
Hell, even I’ve been saying I can’t wait for Obama to kick arse on the 5th.
3 November, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Has anyone seen Bolt’s pathetic blog on Rupert’s Boyer lecture? Rupert practically ripped off the Rudd election platform and all Bolt could do was offer the slightest of crticism.
No ‘gassy Murdoch’ or ‘name just ten Rupert’ or ‘Rupert lives in a mansion and is a hypocrite’ headings on this puppy!
He is a complete fake.
3 November, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Blair is like that friend who stands off to the side of every conversation looking for opportunities to make double entende jokes. He’s funny for a while but eventually you just get tired of his constant interruption and utterly insipid contribution.
3 November, 2008 at 5:38 pm
just on the whole time difference pedant thing, timmy is in the US at the moment, and (I don’t know for sure but) I’m pretty sure he’s blog is posting at sydney time and date. if thats true he’s a) just pwned himself over the hutchison date thing, b) really does have no idea the US is on different time zone or c) is writing for an australian audience. maybe those who were so certain hutchison had fucked up could lend their dead cert knowledge on this.
“No ‘gassy Murdoch’ or ‘name just ten Rupert’ or ‘Rupert lives in a mansion and is a hypocrite’ headings on this puppy!”
i love how his sheep always say andy tells it like it is or tells the truth no other ‘journalist’ do. surely even those dopes could spot the softly-softly on this one? i guess you don’t fuck with the boss, even when the ‘truth’ or andys version of it is at stake. lol!!
3 November, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Timmeh is a classic example of a glass house dweller. He hilariously mocks others for their appearance, name, culture, ideology – you name it, then whines pathetically about the distortion of his own.
Great stuff Timmeh. Keep it up mate. People value your contribution to the world and when you eventually go I am sure some people will miss you and your acerbic wit.
3 November, 2008 at 7:00 pm
i just read this posted at andrew sullivan:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/losing-the-narr.html#more
the parrallells with andrew bolt are startling. his irrational hatred of rudd puts him in the dumb, paranoid biggotted opposition to government instead of smart opposition. his reporting on issues, like at drudge have looked more desperate and more partisan reporting only the marginals instead of the meat. bolt is already irrelevent on stolen generations (all state and federal government apologised), climate change (the government will implement some emissions thing) and seems to be moving to the margins every time he appears on insiders.
i wonder whether some of his regular sheep will start to see that andy is a fringe dweller who is way past his use-by date. he’s struggling to find his place in a labour led government, other columnists seem to do the thinking or get the scoops whereas bolt just left picking up the glenn milne crumbs or linking to one person after another. the end of an era?
3 November, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Robj:At least I haven’t been sucked in by the hype surrounding Sarah Palin. Nice Lady – LOL.
3 November, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Unlikely C.
One of the unfortunate effects of the internet is the self-reinforcing nature of some of it.
The more Bolt is a fringe-dweller, the more they are likely to sympathise with his views.
3 November, 2008 at 8:45 pm
sorry that should read:
“At least I haven’t been sucked in by the hype surrounding Sarah Palin. Nice Lady – LOL”
as bill maher says: say what you will about the democrats, but at least when they hook up with an unstable woman it’s just for a blow job.
meanwhile, enjoy (it gets funnier after ‘new rules’):
3 November, 2008 at 8:55 pm
don’t agree michael. while you provide an echo chamber, which was what bolt, ackerman, albreachtsin etc did during the howard years, your inside the beltway, not noticed, and safe. once the dynamic and boundary changes your cast to the outer. it’s happened with milne, shanahan, devine x 2, bolt and albrechtsin. only bolt seeths with hatred over rudd, so he’s the one whose more on the outer. where’s he gonna get his next scoop from? he has no contacts with the new government, only links and links after links from others who have cultivated connection. and he writes for a newspaper that thrives on the existence of sccops to trump the opposition. as the drudge stuff shows you can only keep up the irrational opposition for so long before your readers notice something amiss. and not to far behind them are the advertisers.
3 November, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Detachment from objective reality doesn’t seem to have stopped Fox News. Maybe Andrew will migrate to it.
3 November, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Bolt’s response to Murdoch’s speech was as expected : lame and just plain sad.
Here’s the biggest and most influential promoter of Global Warming in the world, who uses his media to endorse the reality the global warming and its “catastrophic” effects on the climate (seen Fox News lately?), and Bolt has nothing to say. Nothing.
Tim Flannery? Hell, he’ll do two hundred posts on Flannery for being an “alarmist” and a “true believer” and trying to destroy the world economy, but Murdoch gets a total pass. Is Murdoch a “true believer” in the “new pagan faith?” According to Bolt’s definitions, he sure is.
Does Bolt remind Murdoch that global warming has supposedly stopped? Or that climate change belief makes you a Green Nazi? Does Bolt tell Rupert that his mind has been poisoned by Al Gore’s new religion, statistical fakery and enviro-fascism? Of course not.
The fact that Murdoch is Bolt’s boss is not enough of an excuse for Bolt not taking Murdoch’s claims and advocacy of, for starters, climate change and Aboriginal reconciliation down to the mat.
Murdoch is reiterating primarily the Labor Party platform that won them the election, and Bolt has nothing to say. AT ALL. Even more bizarrely, Bolt’s followers mostly agree with Rupert, and support Bolt’s echoing of Rupert’s Ron Paul Meets Al Gore beliefs and opinions. In fact, they praise him for his vision and clarity.
It’s hallucinatory reading those comments. How many of these commenters are paid for their work? How many are News Ltd staffers? What other explanation can there be for almost unanimous support amongst Boltists when Rupert wings in from hanging out with Evil Pagan Lefties and ‘The Hollywood Elite’ in Manhattan and LA to remind Australia that climate change is a reality, that Aboriginal reconciliation is a priority, that welfare for poor people is a necessity and that John Howard was wrong on just about everything?
Bolt doesn’t believe what he writes, not really. That couldn’t be any more obvious now. How he handles Rupert Murdoch is always a good test. No doubt, Bolt is a passionate believer in some of his regular subjects of mockery and derision, but only just a few. Most of it is there for pure entertainment, to tap and trap a target audience of dwindling Howard-era conservatives.
What sort of man lets his boss trample all over his supposedly passionate, righteous beliefs and then hails him for doing it?
It’s clear too, now, that Bolt is also there to feed really bad ideas and self-circling missions to the Liberal Party, who plunge deeper into The Shit the more they do what he tells them to do. How can Coonan, Turnbull and Abbott not see that doing Bolt’s bidding harms them, not helps them?
A perfect example of this is Bolt’s demands that the Liberal Party go nuts over Rudd’s public mocking of President Bush over the G20 phone call. The story didn’t catch fire with the media because there is essentially nothing there. Bolt knows this, but he drives the Libs on and on to chase their own tails over it, when next to no-one outside of politics or the Boltarium could give a shit. Bolt also knows that the editor of The Australian newspaper was present when the Rudd-Bush call occurred, and that’s why the story got into The Australian newspaper in the first place. Does he tell his readers this? Of course not.
Murdoch’s got five lectures to go, where he will continue to essentially shore up much of what Rudd is planning for Australia, and our eventual integration into a larger Asia community, with China as our new, more powerful, more wealthy bestest friend.
Bolt will have five more opportunities to shred what he has told his readers, daily, he believes are dangerous and culturally disruptive ideas and policies. That they come from Murdoch should make absolutely no difference to Bolt’s usually venomous dismantling of such Evil Pagan Lefty ideals and beliefs. Considering the prominence, influence and power of the man delivering these messages of mostly liberal idealism, Bolt should be expected to spend a great deal of time indeed going at him.
Unless Bolt really is a fake, a mere entertainer, a carnival huckster, which would be disappointing for his fans and critics alike.
3 November, 2008 at 11:19 pm
“Blair is like that friend who stands off to the side of every conversation looking for opportunities to make double entende jokes.”
Man that is so true. He’s not really participating in the debate nor is he bothering to focus on it, just waiting until somebody says what he thinks is a funny word, or something programmed in his head to respond too, so that he can make some sort of childish crack. He’s kind off like a kid with ADD in that regard.
Bolt is more like the boorish, narcissistic and arrogant twat, whose inconsistent and incoherent ramblings, you endure for the sake of politeness at Christmas time.
4 November, 2008 at 7:33 am
Hey Nic, it’s November 4th – what are the exit polls telling us?
4 November, 2008 at 7:35 am
Granted, it’s only 8:30 but you’ll be able to give us an idea in about six hours time?
Hey Jeremy, the clock needs adjusting. (not that I’m a fan of daylight saving)
4 November, 2008 at 9:59 am
A perfect example of this is Bolt’s demands that the Liberal Party go nuts over Rudd’s public mocking of President Bush over the G20 phone call. The story didn’t catch fire with the media because there is essentially nothing there. Bolt knows this, but he drives the Libs on and on to chase their own tails over it, when next to no-one outside of politics or the Boltarium could give a shit.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that this story reminded me that mindlessly partisan ‘journalists’ like Bolt can actually serve a useful purpose provided their team is in opposition. It never hurts to have people devoted to scrutinising government behaviour – it’s the mindless apologists for government that you really need to watch.
I reckon Rudd’s clearly fucked up in relation to the Bush phone call issue and has just learned a very valuable lesson about bignoting yourself at the expense of a foreign leader.
4 November, 2008 at 10:16 am
I’m with you Mondo – however the gall of Bishop to claim that Howard’s crass put down of Obama is not comparable!!!
Actually she’s right, it isn’t comparable, if Obama wins and the Libs win the next election then I’d suggest that without a shitload of arse kissing from the Libs relations will certainly be soured.
For some strange reason we have ridiculously short gaps between federal elections, we may have to endure two years of strained relations because of John Howard’s crass comments. With Bishop’s failure to condemn Howard I have to assume that she supports his stance.
BTW – did anyone notice Rudd sweating when talking about this issue yesterday? I reckon he’d fail miserably on a polygraph over this issue..
4 November, 2008 at 10:19 am
One more thing, what if it’s true that Bush had to be reminded of the G20 – I know we’re supposed to respect the office of the PotUS, but must we respect any clown that gets in? I have minimal respect for GW Bush, his presidency has been a disaster for all of us as far as I am concerned.
What if McCain wins and dies? Am I supposed to all of a sudden respect Palin, because I won’t!
4 November, 2008 at 10:29 am
“It never hurts to have people devoted to scrutinising government behaviour – it’s the mindless apologists for government that you really need to watch.”
Couldn’t agree more, Mondo.
4 November, 2008 at 10:47 am
“Chris of Brisbane
3 November, 2008 at 11:19 pm
“Blair is like that friend who stands off to the side of every conversation looking for opportunities to make double entende jokes.”
Man that is so true. He’s not really participating in the debate nor is he bothering to focus on it, just waiting until somebody says what he thinks is a funny word, or something programmed in his head to respond too, so that he can make some sort of childish crack. He’s kind off like a kid with ADD in that regard.
Bolt is more like the boorish, narcissistic and arrogant twat, whose inconsistent and incoherent ramblings, you endure for the sake of politeness at Christmas time.”
Fair comment Chris. Mondo has nailed Blair, and you have nailed Bolt.
4 November, 2008 at 10:52 am
“Jeremy
4 November, 2008 at 10:29 am
“It never hurts to have people devoted to scrutinising government behaviour – it’s the mindless apologists for government that you really need to watch.”
Couldn’t agree more, Mondo.”
Of course this is true in principle, but in Bolt’s case he’s only “scrutinising government behaviour” because it happens to be a Labor government. He has no commitment to applying the same scrutiny to Coalition governments, therefore any criticism he makes of Labor governments has to be discounted for its partisan content.
4 November, 2008 at 11:10 am
He has no commitment to applying the same scrutiny to Coalition governments, therefore any criticism he makes of Labor governments has to be discounted for its partisan content.
I think we need to be careful with this sort of mentality. Bob is, of course, correct that Bolt applies a blatant double standard and is hopelessly compromised in favour of the Liberals – but I don’t think this means we can discount his criticism of Labor entirely.
In the present case there’s little doubt that Rudd’s comments were at least in the same league as Howard’s ‘Obama = Al Qaeda’ nonsense – but this is, of course, irrelevant. Howard’s comments were a stupid breach of protocol that put our relationship with the US at risk, and so were Rudd’s.
Watching him today try to obfuscate by referring to Howard’s Obama comments was fairly disgusting. Rudd’s been busted and he knows it.
4 November, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“Rudd’s been busted and he knows it.”
Hence the sweaty brow…..
4 November, 2008 at 1:31 pm
“I don’t think this means we can discount his criticism of Labor entirely.” I agree, that’s why I said they need to be discounted for their partisan content. After that discount has been applied, we can take seriously whatever is left over. And from what I’ve read, I’m not completely convinced it was Rudd who let the cat out of the bag. Is it not the case that an Australian journalist was present at the time the call was made? If so, would it not be obvious to anyone listening that Rudd had to explain to W what the G20 was?
4 November, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I’m not completely convinced it was Rudd who let the cat out of the bag. Is it not the case that an Australian journalist was present at the time the call was made?
I don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is why did Rudd, or one of his staffers, leak what now appear to be fake details of a phone conversation and then use them to mock the US president.
Looks to me like Rudd was trying to bignote himself in an unbelievably stupid way. Hopefully he’s learned a very valuable lesson from this.
4 November, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“The issue is why did Rudd, or one of his staffers, leak what now appear to be fake details of a phone conversation and then use them to mock the US president.
Looks to me like Rudd was trying to bignote himself in an unbelievably stupid way. ”
I agree with every word of that – IF that is what happened. I also believe it would be entirely in character for Rudd to do such a thing. It’s just that I’m not completely convinced that that’s how it got out.
4 November, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I’m also not convinced it was fake. Rudd denied it, Bush denied it, but what was it that Mandy Rice-Davies said?
4 November, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“First, hockey is played on fields – even, occasionally, ice hockey – and in any case Hutchison never specified the ice variety. Secondly,…”
If it’s so lame (and I don’t care whether it is or not, personally) why are you wasting any effort with a point by point refutation of such a trivial matter with trivial analysis of the trivial details?
Who’s the refutation for anyway? Surely you subscribe to the view that the sycophantic readership here are all intelligent enough to have reached the same conclusions as you?
So, what’s it all for then, eh? All this busy scribbling and typing. All this vexed frowniness?
As you were.
4 November, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Dr Ignatius
If you really believe that Jeremy is wasting his time deconstructing Blair’s dishonest commentary, then how much more wasted must your time be?
I mean, by your own definition you’re spending your time critiquing a trivial analysis of the trivial details of a trivial matter. You’re also clearly visiting this site and reading the trivial commentary.
You appear to be far more interested in this kind of analysis than you’re letting on. That or you’re a Blair monkey trying to roll out one of the more pathetic retorts available to a thinking person.
My money’s on option # 2.
4 November, 2008 at 5:33 pm
There’s no arguing with your penetrative analysis, Mondo. Stellar work there, my man.
4 November, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Good work Mondo Rock. Another small victory.
4 November, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Abig Chunder just can’t stay away, can he?
5 November, 2008 at 6:37 am
Since I posted the above comment mentioning that the editor in chief of The Australian newspaper was present at the Rudd “Bush Is Dumber Than Cold Vomit” G20 call, both Bolt and Blair have decided to inform their readers of this fact.
5 November, 2008 at 8:16 am
The comments above are Abu eh?
Looks like I put my money on the right option.
5 November, 2008 at 9:02 am
I meant my comment above, about Bolt totally wussing out.
5 November, 2008 at 9:19 am
Bolt has responded to the earlier confusion in regards to American dates vs Australian dates in his post today about the shrinking ice caps.
(Note: the satellite-generated pictures from the University of Illinois use the American-style date stamp for November 3.)
Anyone that uses computers regularly knows that the date should be written: 2008 11 03 that way all the files generated using dates come up in the correct order making finding files easier.
5 November, 2008 at 10:12 am
Mr Frowny returns!
5 November, 2008 at 10:36 am
Mondo,
I’ll agree that the handling of the “leak” since the original report appeared in The Australian has clearly been bad on Rudd’s part, but I still think it is unclear what the real story is. Given that Rudd and Bush have denied that the account of the conversation is accurate, the only genuine information that was leaked is that Bush and Rudd spoke about the economic crisis. Given that the call took place while Chris Mitchell (among others) was in the building with Rudd, that doesn’t seem like a terrible blunder.
The question of how false information came to be published is the real issue, but to me it’s unclear whether Rudd or even his staff were responsible. If Rudd intentionally gave a false account to a journalist, on the record, then it is a big issue. If a staff member did it on their own initiative, then that needs to be dealt with. But Bolt and others are asserting that “Rudd leaked” when it is not clear that he did, and there are other possible explanations.
5 November, 2008 at 11:00 am
But Bolt and others are asserting that “Rudd leaked” when it is not clear that he did, and there are other possible explanations
If Rudd had nothing to do with the leak then why isn’t he coming out an demanding a retraction and apology from the Australian for the story?
Also, if Rudd had nothing to do with it then would he demand a full investigation given the seriousness of a conversation between two world leaders being leaked to the media.
The problem for Rudd is that until he does either, it looks more and more like Rudd is responsible for the leak and he is desperately hoping it goes away. In other words, rudd is acting like he has something to hide.
BTW – What the deal with him trying to deflect the media by bringing up what Howard said about Obama last year? It’s 3rd grade antics on Rudd part and if he really wanted to bring up the past, then Latham’s suck hole comments about Bush should be addressed as well.
5 November, 2008 at 11:05 am
Excellent use of paragraphing Rad.
5 November, 2008 at 12:01 pm
The question of how false information came to be published is the real issue, but to me it’s unclear whether Rudd or even his staff were responsible.
I dunno Tobias – Rudd & co made absolutely no effort whatsoever to correct the record when the story was first reported, despite it revealing details of a private call and making mocking reference to the US president. If it wasn’t Rudd then why didn’t he immediately dispute the story? As our country’s number 1 statesman why was he not at pains to correct a story that used details of a private phone call between him and the President to mock the President?
The evidence is not conclusive, I’ll grant you that, but even if the leak had nothing to do with him Rudd’s insipid response to it (notably including the “look over there” tactic of raising Howard’s equally stupid Obama screwup), do not paint him in a particularly flattering light.
5 November, 2008 at 1:33 pm
OT (somewhat):
Henderson and Bolt continually complain that the ABC and the MSM is biased:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_abc_through_democratic_eyes/
Apparently this is based on the numbers of candidates and spokespeople interviewed from either “side”. Henderson uses phrases akin to “he/she sounds like she votes Democrat”.
FFS! Small wonder that they see a bias when they view the world and the media through the prism of their own right-wing political bias. It’s hardly surprising that self-centred dickwads like Bolt and Henderson *think* they are “centrist” – but that doesn’t make it so.
And wouldn’t they love the opportunity to say how this “bias” should be corrected? Presumably by interfering in the media processes. Ah yes, conservative regulation and manipulation good…
5 November, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“Henderson and Bolt continually complain that the ABC and the MSM is biased:”
Bolt is the MSM, and too right – he’s biased!!! ;o)
I suppose they just can’t handle the reality that Australia has rejected the policies of the far right and the media quite rightly reflects this.
5 November, 2008 at 2:48 pm
If you want a laugh have a read through some of the comments on Bolt’s blog on the US election today.
Jeesh some of them are still trying to think it is some big MSM conspiracy and that they will wake up soon from this nightmare.
5 November, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Well they’re not going to wake up from it now – McCain has conceded. The election’s over and Obama has won.
Congratulations America.
5 November, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“Jeesh some of them are still trying to think it is some big MSM conspiracy and that they will wake up soon from this nightmare.”
I am sure the boltards will apply the same ‘logic’ when the NSW Labor govt gets punted! I can just see andy’s column now ‘Survey shows media biased’.
Ann of wa will be the first to lament the loss of an ‘excellent’ Labor government and the lack of scrutiny applied to snake oil salesman Barry O’Farrell.
Yeh right.
5 November, 2008 at 7:52 pm
“If you want a laugh have a read through some of the comments on Bolt’s blog on the US election today.”
one word: denial.
5 November, 2008 at 9:52 pm
a(nother) reality check for radp:
“Even more imponderable are questions about Palin’s future priorities. Will she try to repair her old relationships, or continue as the warrior cheered by a national conservative base? Will her social-conservative allies in Alaska sit quietly on the sidelines, as they did during the first two years of her term? Will Palin be looking ahead at a national race in 2012, or at another term as governor? Or perhaps a run for U.S. Senate? And how will those ambitions affect the choices she makes in the near term?”
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/579161.html
if you think she’s a shoe-in for 2012 think again. she appeals to the republican base, not to independants who deserted mccain today. after democrat inroads in the senate at least 2 moderate republicans are gone, meaning the remaining GOP rabble are even more conservative than before. think about how that’s gonna play in voterland over the next few years, as well as how this election has shown just how badly the republicans need independants.
palin’s performance in this campaign has revlealled her as partisan, divisive and extreme deploying all the rovian tactics people are fucking sick of. she has also shown she lacking nous and credibility on important issues like the economy and foreign affairs. if she gets the nomination she’ll be up against obama who is smart and a thinker rather than an idealogue. i believe that after bush people are sick of idealogues in government and want political leaders who are genuine bipartisan. palin does not fit this bill.
palin will also have to compete with other republicans in the primarys, something she didn’t have to do this year. i don’t think she’ll make it beyond that point.
6 November, 2008 at 6:58 am
“she appeals to the republican base,”
I’d add, part of the Republican base, the crazy fundamentalists. The sane Republicans, they’ll be upset that she was picked as VP. From McCains concession speech, we can all agree that he’s a guy that can be extremely dignified when he wants to be, had he campaigned like he conceded, had he not had an ignoramus redneck as a running mate the election would have been a lot closer.
The loss was down to Palin, McCain is an old man, whilst most wouldn’t be too uncomfortable with him at the reins, the rational among us would be genuinely concerned if the totally ignorant Palin was at the reins.
Her experience as Governor of Alaska is totally undermined by her ignorance, for example; her inability to understand that fruit fly research is indeed valuable research…
6 November, 2008 at 8:43 am
““If you want a laugh have a read through some of the comments on Bolt’s blog on the US election today.””
like:
‘democracy has lost’
‘never witnessed anything so unjust’
‘From here on the US economy will more closely resemble that of its southern neighbors in South America. ‘
‘I wonder how long it takes to get a bumper sticker: Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing an idiot.”
‘Lefties Gloat… Lefties Hate… Lefties Gloat… Lefties Hate…”
Hmmm – remember the ‘Whitlam hospitalised thread’?
It goes on and on and on, I wouldn’t expect anything less from those crazy Boltards.
6 November, 2008 at 8:55 am
if you think she’s a shoe-in for 2012 think again
I never said that Palin was a shoe in for 2012. I was dispute those of you that think that she has no hope in hell of running in 2012. I have said all along that after 4 years of an Obama presidency, and 4 years for her to gain experience in the areas that she is now criticised for, there is a very good chance that she will win the republican ticket to run against Obama in 2012.
she appeals to the republican base, not to independents who deserted mccain today.
It was those same independents that voted strongly for Bush in 2004, allowing him to have a second term. To say that she will not be able to attract those same independents in 2012 is short-sighted.
Keep in mind that it was those same independents that voted for proposition 8 in California that now bans same-sex marriage. Even though they voted for Obama, they still share some of Palin’s conservative views.
think about how that’s gonna play in voterland over the next few years, as well as how this election has shown just how badly the republicans need independants.
It shows how badly both parties need the independents and it shows that the independents are centre right. They voted Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008, while also voting to ban same-sex marriage.
An Obama win does not mean that the USA has suddenly shifted to the left. The USA is a very religious country. It is more conservative than Europe or Australia. This has always been Obama’s election to lose and it is more about an electorate rejecting George Bush than converting to progressive beliefs.
6 November, 2008 at 8:58 am
Yeah, i thought McCains concession speech was pretty good too.
He looked embarressed at the behaviour of his supporters in several speeches over the course of the campaign, but in particular the concession speech.
I think Palin and the extreme right had a big part to play in losing the election for the repugs. (But don’t tell Timmeh, i hate to see a grown man cry!) These hard right religious nutcases probably put off a lot of more socially progressive Republican voters.
BTW, Jim Kunstler had a few interesting things to say in regards to the Repugs campaign, “the Republican Party needs to crawl off to a dark hole somewhere and either pupate into something better or die — as the Whigs did in 1856.”
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/
6 November, 2008 at 9:00 am
The boltards have uncovered a scandal – reverse racism. All the black folks voted for Obama you know. Disgraceful huh?
Born again anti-racists or bigots trying to appropriate the language of equality to attack African-Americans?
6 November, 2008 at 9:01 am
OMG – all of tim’s election blog posts are dated 5th November! What a dope!
6 November, 2008 at 9:02 am
‘To say that she will not be able to attract those same independents in 2012 is short-sighted.’
If this is true, why did they not vote for her and McCain this time round?
You are living in fantasy land Rad.
America has soundly rejected the extreme right, which Palin most definately represents.
6 November, 2008 at 9:03 am
I woke today with a sense of hope for the first time in a long while. Sayonara Palin, you f**king simpleton.
Please let Obama’s first priority be to get those Haliburton war-criminal puppets shipped over to the Hague.
6 November, 2008 at 9:06 am
The only reson the Repugs lost is because the blacks, gays, women, young people, hispanics, self hating jews and retirees were fooled into voting for Obama by the leftist elites in the media.
Who said the Repugnicans only represent middle aged, middleclass white men?
6 November, 2008 at 9:15 am
If this is true, why did they not vote for her and McCain this time round?
Ask yourself this DbD. How did Bush win in 2004? He won because he won the votes of independent voters.
America has soundly rejected the extreme right, which Palin most definately represents.
They have rejected Bush. It was the extreme right that put forward Proposition 8. They voted for it. So if they were rejecting the extreme right, then they would have rejected proposition 8.
It is naive to think that an Obama win represents a rejection of Conservative or religious America. There is a lot of the African American communities that are Religious right that voted for Obama. These same communities have voted republican in the past.
To think that these communities have suddenly rejected their religious right beliefs is ridiculous.
What I find funny is the left suddenly think that an Obama win is some kind of cultural war victory for them.
6 November, 2008 at 9:17 am
The only reson the Repugs lost is because the blacks, gays, women, young people, hispanics, self hating jews and retirees were fooled into voting for Obama by the leftist elites in the media
And Obama, along with the independent voters of California have shown that they support the gay community. By Banning same sex marriage.
Yes Obama supports the gay community. He supports them so much that he believes that they should be discriminated against when it comes to marriage.
6 November, 2008 at 9:17 am
I don’t expect we will see Palin on the Presidential stage again. Historically, Vice-Presidential nominees on the losing ticket tend to fade away; and in this particular case, there is probably enough concern that Palin contributed to the loss that some Republicans will be wary of bringing her back.
Also remember that in four years she will be up for re-election as Governor – contesting the Presidential primaries could affect her chances in that contest, so unless she was very confident of getting the Presidential nomination it might be a mistake.
The fact is, there are others who can attract the same segment of the Republican Party that loved her (i.e., the evangelical right) and who have greater strengths in other areas. Mitt Romney would be an obvious front-runner at the moment, but I won’t be surprised to see Mike Huckabee do well in 2012 – he made a good run this time around and is going to spend some time on Fox News, which will raise his national profile with conservatives.
6 November, 2008 at 9:21 am
‘Haliburton war-criminal puppets shipped over to the Hague.’
Fuck yeah Idlaviv, Start with Cheney and Rummy for starters!
“Go fuck yourself Mr Cheney”
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SemYQH-8o
6 November, 2008 at 9:25 am
Surely you can acknowledge that she’s an ignoramus (fruit flies).
I bet that the Republicans drop her like a hot potato. In fact I’m picking that they’ll use her as a scapegoat. Of course the crazy fundies will still love her but quite frankly, who cares what they think, they’re nuts.
6 November, 2008 at 9:27 am
Sorry – my post is for Rad, I got distracted whilst composing it..
6 November, 2008 at 9:33 am
tobias: i thought palin was up for re-election in 2010?
radp: still in denial about palin. and you can’t compare the gay marriage vote with rejection of the republicans – 2 different issues and no gay marriage is not something that only appeals to religious conservatives. look at australia.
just like john howard, bush went too far to the right and out of the comfort zone of most people. i think it is ironic but fitting that a line is drawn under his leadership by a black man with a muslim name.
6 November, 2008 at 9:35 am
I bet that the Republicans drop her like a hot potato. In fact I’m picking that they’ll use her as a scapegoat. Of course the crazy fundies will still love her but quite frankly, who cares what they think, they’re nuts
And if they don’t?
You are making a lot of predictions based on what you want to see, relating to a political party that you oppose. The chances are, that they do not share your view of the world and they will not act in the same way you do.
What Palin did do was rally the republican base far more than McCain could. The independents aren’t as important after the election as they have a history of being less partisan. If they can vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004, there is a good chance that they could vote for palin in 2012, if Obama does not live up to their expectations of him.
You are failing to factor in the reason why independents switched from Bush to Obama. A lot of it is probably because Bush failed to deliver what he promised in 2004. The same can be said about Obama. If Obama fails to deliver, they will vote him out, just as quickly as they voted out Bush.
Once the Obama win subsides and the time comes for him to govern, then we will get a real sense of how Palin will go in 2012. If Obama is outstanding as president then palin has no chance of winning in 2012. But if Obama is a disaster, then that creates an enormous opportunity for the republican Party and Palin.
It is one thing for Obama to say change is coming, it is another to deliver that change. Especially when Obama has never said what that change is.
6 November, 2008 at 9:36 am
actually the really cool thing about the timing of obamas presidency is that all these issues that confront him mean he has a genuine chance to go down in history as the greatest president of the modern era. suck it up boltards! lol!!!
6 November, 2008 at 9:40 am
just like john howard, bush went too far to the right and out of the comfort zone of most people. i think it is ironic but fitting that a line is drawn under his leadership by a black man with a muslim name
And Obama knows that if he goes too far to the left, out of the comfort zone of most Americans then he will be kicked out in 2012.
Keep in mind that the USA is a deeply religious country. A country where even a progressive leader like Obama champions his Christian beliefs. The left are fooling themselves if they think that Obama is going to steer the US in their direction of ideology. The country is ideologically centre right. That will not change with an Obama win.
6 November, 2008 at 9:41 am
you know rad there’s a lot of typical boltard denial in your post. just like with the liberal party here the die-hards seem to think they only need the right leader to be a dead cert for the next election. they have to rebuild, to regroup and to define what they stand for. bush and rove have totally trashed the republican brand – it used to be about tradition and libertarian values. now it’s been taken over by the religious fundies who’ve branded it as an extremist rightwing party. this is now 2 elections in a row where republicans have been punished by the electorate. just having the ‘right’ leader isn’t going to win them the next presidential campaign.
6 November, 2008 at 9:44 am
confessions – you’re right, I’m wrong. I thought it was a six-year term, but it’s four.
6 November, 2008 at 9:51 am
I really wouldn’t be getting too over-expectant in regards to what Obama is likely to change. Like any candidate for the US Presidency, he has had to acquire a large amount of money from various sources to fund his campaign, mainly big business, therefore it stands to reason that he has had to make certain promises to those people.
With that in mind I suspect that many of these promised changes will be more window dressing than anything else, and the government will probably just favour a different group of industries to those favoured by the Republicans, I’m not sure how much the average American will really benefit. I have been told by a friend over there that he is talking about cutting funding to Universities, but I don’t know if that is right or not.
I guess time will tell, and I truly hope that they’ve made the right choice — certainly a change to certain aspects of foreign policy looks on the cards, it will be interesting to see what the new government does on that front.
Oh almost forgot, I highly doubt we’ll see anyone being shipped to the Hague, the activities of Halliburton certainly don’t come into the category of war-crimes, but I reckon they certainly should be looked at under normal criminal law.
6 November, 2008 at 9:51 am
just like with the liberal party here the die-hards seem to think they only need the right leader to be a dead cert for the next election
………
just having the ‘right’ leader isn’t going to win them the next presidential campaign
Of course it wont. But one of the big factors in Obama’s win was Bush’s failure as a president. This is what can swing an independent voter from one party to another.
Now it is time for Obama to deliver on his promises. If he doesn’t, then a lot of those independents could be swayed back to the republican party in 2012. If Obama is a huge success as a president then the republicans next chance of a win is 2016 or even later.
Obama lacks the experience of previous presidents. Also he is starting his presidency with challenges that most other presidents have never had to inherit in almost a century. These are massive obstacles for him. The independent voters that voted for him have very high expectations.
It’s do or die for Obama now.
6 November, 2008 at 9:53 am
BTW Rad,
Sorry, but I really think you’re flogging a dead horse with Palin for 2012, there are a number of far better candidates who don’t have the taint of this election around them that the Republicans can call on.
6 November, 2008 at 9:56 am
“actually the really cool thing about the timing of obamas presidency is that all these issues that confront him mean he has a genuine chance to go down in history as the greatest president of the modern era. suck it up boltards! lol!!!”
You’re right there Confessions, but, unfortuneately because of those same issues, he also has the chance to go down as the greatest failure in history too…
6 November, 2008 at 10:00 am
Sorry, but I really think you’re flogging a dead horse with Palin for 2012, there are a number of far better candidates who don’t have the taint of this election around them that the Republicans can call on.
Gavin I do agree, but my point is to those that say there is no hope in hell for palin in 2012. I agree that Palin could lose the republican ticket in 2012. But if she uses the next 4 years to gain experience in areas that she is now lacking then she has a good chance in 2012.
I believe that a big factor in palins chances in 2012, rests with what kind of President Obama becomes. If he is really successful then Palin’s chances of ever becoming President are virtually nil. But if Obama turns out to be a dud then that increases Palin’s chances. Especially if she has spend the next 4 years gaining the skills and media exposure required.
6 November, 2008 at 10:04 am
“You are making a lot of predictions based on what you want to see”
My predictions are based on sound evidence, ie she’s an ignoramus. Yours however are based on ‘what you want to see’.
“What Palin did do was rally the republican base far more than McCain could. ”
Then she opened her gob and proved to the world how ignorant she is… Hence McCains campaign went down the toilet…
“You are failing to factor in the reason why independents switched from Bush to Obama.”
Really? You’re failing to realise that your attempts to read my mind are futile!
“But if Obama is a disaster, then that creates an enormous opportunity for the republican Party and Palin. ”
Actually it’s down to whether the GoP believes Palin is a viable candidate. If she’s their best candidate then the world can rest easy – The Republicans will not stick a chance.
Anyway Rad, back to my original question that you have conveniently ignored (your usual MO) do you acknowledge that she is an ignoramus, she stands up and speaks about things that she clearly does not understand?
“Like any candidate for the US Presidency, he has had to acquire a large amount of money from various sources to fund his campaign, mainly big business, therefore it stands to reason that he has had to make certain promises to those people.”
Gavin, you realise that the vast bulk of Obama’s money came from donations less than $100? As far as I can tell he’ll be less beholden to rich lobbyists as a result.
“If he doesn’t, then a lot of those independents could be swayed back to the republican party in 2012. ”
Not if that ignoramus Palin is the candidate…
6 November, 2008 at 10:06 am
“Especially if she has spend the next 4 years gaining the skills and media exposure required.”
You mean completely reinventing herself – changing her name and appearance might dupe some.
6 November, 2008 at 10:21 am
Anyway Rad, back to my original question that you have conveniently ignored (your usual MO) do you acknowledge that she is an ignoramus, she stands up and speaks about things that she clearly does not understand?
That’s just juvenile Rob. She is a very intelligent woman. The proof of that is that she has risen to the level that she has in politics. Palin’s only problem at the moment is that she has not learnt how to handle the media as a politician. In other words, she hasn’t learn the skill of manipulating the interview in her favour.
But this is a skill that she can learn.
6 November, 2008 at 10:25 am
Rad,
There seem to be two assumptions in your suggestion that Palin could be a contender in 2012: (i) that her current position gives her a starting point, and (ii) that she can build her profile in the next few years.
I would disagree with both. I have already said a bit about the first one (i.e., VP losers generally don’t do well, and there is a narrative that puts at least some of the blame for yesterday’s loss onto her).
But how is she going to get experience and exposure in the next few years? She is about to go back to being Governor of a sparsely populated and remote state. I just can’t see how she is going to inject herself into federal politics from there. How will she strengthen her foreign policy credentials? She might try to get some media exposure (e.g., pop up on the Sunday morning political shows), but will it be enough? Compared to other potential candidates, it seems unlikely that she will get enough of the spotlight in the years to come.
6 November, 2008 at 10:27 am
“That’s just juvenile Rob. She is a very intelligent woman.”
An intelligent woman wouldn’t make a speech mocking fruit fly research ‘in Paris’ then later in the same speech say that she’d like to see a cure for autism.. That is juvenile and totally ignorant (You probably don’t understand the link here, way too subtle for you)
It was her speech Rad, I can safely assume that you’re a bit of a dill yourself if you can’t see what an idiot Palin is.
“In other words, she hasn’t learn the skill of manipulating the interview in her favour. ”
It was a speech, not an interview, I’m sure I’ve linked the transcript… Besides, how on earth did she become Governor of Alaska if she’s so useless with the media? Low standards in Alaska I guess.
6 November, 2008 at 10:41 am
I don’t think she is an idiot.
Inexperienced and provincial – yes.
Arch-conservative – yes.
And the last is her main problem. She’s from the loony right, the source of the policies that made Bush so unpopular.
If Palin is the hope of the US conservatives in 2012, they are in dire straits.
6 November, 2008 at 10:41 am
Palin’s only problem at the moment is that she has not learnt how to handle the media as a politician.
A pretty standard example of Matt’s refusal to accept the real world around him.
To assert, let alone believe, that Palin’s “only” problem was her lack of media savvy is to completely ignore her far-right policy preferences and her dependance on class warfare as an electoral weapon. She was not rejected because she didn’t sell her product well enough – she was rejected because her product was angry, disfunctional and obsolete.
Palin was actually quite media savvy – she was extremely well packaged to her ‘base’, it’s just that she was utterly unappealing to a huge portion of the remaining American electorate. She totally alienated the moderate conservatives and sent them scurrying to the rational arms of Obama.
Continuing to insist that she’s in with a chance next time is just plain stupid. Even if Obama tanks as president there is no way the Repugs will turn back to Palin – they have far too many superior (and more moderate) candidates.
6 November, 2008 at 10:44 am
“An intelligent woman wouldn’t make a speech mocking fruit fly research ‘in Paris’ then later in the same speech say that she’d like to see a cure for autism.. That is juvenile and totally ignorant (You probably don’t understand the link here, way too subtle for you)”
Actually I’ll rephrase that, a nasty cynical person might well want to dupe the ignorant masses, you know the type that boo at the mere mention of the name ‘Obama’…
6 November, 2008 at 11:11 am
Hello Rob,
Yes I know that a large proportion of Obama’s funding came from small donors, however, there were also significant donations from big business — Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae included — and let’s face facts here, big business corporations don’t give money away out of the kindness of their hearts.
I’m not meaning to criticise him for accepting these donations, they are clearly a necessity in any Presidential campaign, I’m just saying that he is without doubt going to be beholden at least to some extent to those companies that have made large donations.
I reckon the Republicans could do a lot better in 2012 if they run with Giuliani.
6 November, 2008 at 11:19 am
“and let’s face facts here, big business corporations don’t give money away out of the kindness of their hearts.”
I agree Gavin, I’m sure McCain would have had the same problem. I guess it’s an unfortunate feature of modern politics. For me personally I find the money spent on US campaigns to be obscene and the football supporter mentality of the electorate to be absurd.
I wonder how many decades Australia is behind with regard to these odd facets of US elections? Many I hope.
6 November, 2008 at 11:57 am
Rad, your problem is that you think all conservatives are as extreme as the Bolt/Blair monkeys.
The fact that she appeals to you and the small minority you seem aligned with is irrelevant, the fact that she represents the very failed polices and ideology that lost the Repugs the election is not.
You really seem incapable of seeing just how NOT center right Bolt, Blair and the other authors of your opinion are.
6 November, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Who said the right are good natured losers:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=661179
6 November, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Jesus – Bolt’s just turned on Palin as well. The McCain camp is now leaking that she didn’t know that Africa was a continent and not a country.
I reckon she’ll be lucky to hold on to her govenorship, let alone make a run at federal politics.
6 November, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Some have been predicting a shit-fight post election loss, with both ’sides’ preparing to leak against the other to sheet home the blame for the anticipated loss.
As someone was pointing out last night (can’t remember his name), this will bring out the tension between the 2 factions that make up the Republicans – the moneyed old elite and the religious fundies. In Govt they can co-exist, but in opposition, they may well end up tearing strips off each other.
6 November, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“I’m sure McCain would have had the same problem. I guess it’s an unfortunate feature of modern politics. For me personally I find the money spent on US campaigns to be obscene and the football supporter mentality of the electorate to be absurd.”
Spot on Rob,
The money they spend and the antics that their crowds carry on with are unbelievable and I, like you, just hope our system never goes the same way — I’d like to think it won’t.
6 November, 2008 at 12:54 pm
You know I think that Palin actually does have one shot at the Presidency if she plays her hand carefully.
She’s already heavily linked to the Alaskan independance movement, and that state can’t be real happy with the election outcome (they were 60% for McCain), so there’s always the option of secession.
Then she can declare herself President of Alaska and hold a moose party or something.
6 November, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“The McCain camp is now leaking that she didn’t know that Africa was a continent and not a country.”
I know I’ve been harsh in my criticism but if this is true my criticism is justified..
“I’d like to think it won’t.”
Me too, I’ll just take the good bits of American Culture – Democratic Principles, Films, Rock n Roll and video games (though Aussies & Brits are great video game makers too).
6 November, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Bolt writes:
“Hmm. There’s obvious some covering of backs and blame-shfiting going on here. But if these stories turn out to be true, then my predictions that she had the talent to be a contender the next time around are plainly wrong. ”
Good for him, thing is, I’m no genius (well I might be ;o) ) I could see from the outset that she wasn’t up to the job…
Rad???? You still think she can become a credible candidate?
6 November, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Now Rad. Or Matt. Or whatever your name is. You are not doing justice to that magnificent education you told us about a while ago. You are putting forward some very silly ideas here. Granted, your spelling is quite good, and some of your sentences are very well-constructed. But the content, I’m afraid, is, well I’m sorry to have to say this, but it’s rubbish.
I ask you to consider this. Presidential candidates are expected to have debates. In public. It is 2012. Sarah Palin vs Barack Obama. In a debate, remember? It’s kind of a contest of intellects. Possibly even two or three of them. It is cruel of you to even think about it. Just stop being so silly RadMatt. It would be like, say, you taking on Pauline Hanson.
6 November, 2008 at 1:21 pm
In light of Bolt’s article today about the issues with Palin including:
-Palin thought Africa was a country, not a continent.
- She did not know which countries were some of America’s closest trading partners.
- She refused to prepare properly for her first, shaky media interviews.
- She was a prima donna, screaming at staff after checking her press cuttings.
- She was a shopaholic.
The above are Bolt’s words not mine. How does RadP’s assertion that:
“She is a very intelligent woman. The proof of that is that she has risen to the level that she has in politics. Palin’s only problem at the moment is that she has not learnt how to handle the media as a politician. In other words, she hasn’t learn the skill of manipulating the interview in her favour. “
6 November, 2008 at 1:22 pm
That post from Bolt shows where things are headed – Sarah Palin’s flame will be extinguished as the Republicans attempt to find a way to apportion blame and rebuild. It’s just like the finger-pointing in the Liberal Party after last November – everyone will want to make sure it is somebody else’s fault. Palin was visible, was widely perceived as a negative factor, and doesn’t have the established support behind her to withstand this.
It really doesn’t matter exactly how stupid she is. She’s done.
6 November, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I wonder if the boyfriend of her daughter is breathing a sigh of relief… a shot gun wedding on the lawns of the whitehouse is not a good look.
6 November, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Rad? Matt? Anyone home?
6 November, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Bolt’s Palin problem is that he’s just now noticing the issues with Sarah. He’s serial offender when it comes to poor judgement. He backed Howard when he was clearly way past his use by date…then plumped for the poor choice of Costello at the last moment. Didn’t he also back Nelson over Turnball?
6 November, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Absolutely right Michael. I can’t believe no-one else has commented on this extraordinary about-face on Bolt’s part. For months he has refused to acknowledge as legitimate any criticism of Palin, instead attributing it to bad will, sexism, elitism, or just plain left-wing bias. Now, all of a sudden, when her own side vindicates a lot of the criticism by exposing her as venal, stupid, ignorant and lazy, it’s OK for him to retail these attacks! The man has a truly astonishing lack of self-awareness. No wonder RadMatt is such a fan.
6 November, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Bolt is a weather vane – he’ll turn in which ever direction the winds of far-right power seem to be blowing. Hence yesterday Palin was the future, today she is washed up.
6 November, 2008 at 2:14 pm
And he thinks no-one notices.
6 November, 2008 at 2:17 pm
‘The man has a truly astonishing lack of self-awareness.’
Like i said the other day, Bolt is a textbook malignant narcissist.
6 November, 2008 at 2:21 pm
You did, and he is.
6 November, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Is it just possible that this is Bolt’s idea of balance?
6 November, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Anonymous speculation fueled by left-wing blogs = a vile smear.
Anonymous speculation fueled by Fox News = food for thought.
6 November, 2008 at 2:39 pm
That’s the cognitive dissonance of Bolt.
Prior to the election all the attacks on Palin’s intelligence were signs of media bias. Now that facts are being revealed suggesting she really was unintelligent he’s willing to concede that she might be – but he won’t ever be able to go back and admit that what he previously decried as conclusive proof of ‘left-wing bias’ was, in fact, simply factual reporting.
The bias meme will continue unabated at Boltworld despite the fact that their ‘evidence’ is being progressively undermined by reality.
6 November, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Somebody was whinging on Bolt’s Blog that all the sources were anonymous. Nobody was whinging about Glen Milne’s article regarding the phone call between Bush & Rudd, Milne failed to name a single source. I’m not trying to defend Rudd, I think he’s been telling porkies. I am just pointing out the rank hypocrisy of the average Boltard.
Back to Palin, I don’t think Rad Pipper will be posting here for a while, not as Rad Pipper anyway.
6 November, 2008 at 2:49 pm
You’re right, Mondo – and his commenters have already started to fold this into the bias meme. Why hasn’t anyone asked Obama who the closest trading partners of the US are? Bias, that’s why.
6 November, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I reckon the Troopergate episode would probably spell the end of any future Federal political aspirations that Palin may have anyway. We are still awaiting the consequences of the findings from that.
I still can’t help wondering why the Republicans didn’t put Giuliani up as their candidate, I believe he would have made a far better one than McCain, both because of his age and also because the whole world saw his abilities as both a leader and a man in the wake of 9/11. His popularity seems to be pretty high too.
It almost makes me wonder if the Repubs really wanted to win…
6 November, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I still can’t help wondering why the Republicans didn’t put Giuliani up as their candidate,
It was factional fighting that sunk Giuliani – he was considered an effette inner-city elitist by much of the republican base (the Palin crowd).
He would have captured the fiscal conservative vote, and possible even pried some independent centrists away from Obama, but he would have lost much of the religious and social conservative base due to his image as a New Yorker.
It would have been interesting though – a Giuliani/Palin ticket would have been a very different beast.
6 November, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Some more stuff about the McCain campaign is starting to come out here, including this gem for the Grodsters:
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bloke.
6 November, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Hello Mondo,
Hmm…I wasn’t really thinking of a Giuliani /Palin ticket, but you’re right, that may have made for an interesting scenario…would probably have covered most if not all of the Republican base — might even have picked up a few of those all-important swinging voters too…
Either way, I feel it would have been better than McCain / Palin, I really think they suffered pretty badly because of the ‘old man’ image….Giuliani might have even got past that ‘more of the same’ feeling that McCain seemed to bring.
6 November, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I’m really interested to see how Obama handles Iraq, If he pulls out before the Iraqi government is prepared, Al Quaieda is sure to claim victory and there will be inevitable comparisons to Vietnam, but if he delays too long there will no doubt be repercussions at home…It really is a fine line to tread.
6 November, 2008 at 4:25 pm
What a wonderful day it was yesterday, an historical even which left me with a great feeling all day. On an RDO, I spent most of the day shopping, and the momentous occasion that yesterday was, was highlighted by the large group of people who watched Obama’s speech live, on one of the big Plasmas in Myers. I happened to notice that some in the crowd were overtaken by the emotion of the event, and shed a tear or too. I can’t begin to imagine what sort of day yesterday meant for African Americans.
Aside from the obvious humour, who gives a shit what the Boltards have to say in reaction to yesterday’s events? Mccain deserves great credit for his losing speech, and the events of yesterday including the conduct of many individuals during the election campaign, and after Obama’s confirmation as President, further highlights to me, how removed the Boltard types within our societies are, from real rational, mature conservatives.
As a recent foxtel subscriber, until last night, I was never really privy to the utter puke-fest, and pathetic freak-show of Bolt’s most balanced news source “Fox News”. A clear oxymoron. But after having to stay up most of last night, the extent of its disgraceful partisanship, and the kiss-arse collegial treatment given by its “reporters” to the Republican politicians it conducts interview with, such as the abhorrent Karl Rove, I am now acutely aware of.
6 November, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Gavin,
you’re right about one thing, if Obama pulls out soon, there’ll be the same moronic claims that ‘we were just about to prevail’ like there are amongst the most deluded of the far-right re: Vietnam.
6 November, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Chris of Brisbane: a fantastic day yetersday. the scenes on the streets in the US reminded me of when nelson mandella was elected in sth africa. i have NEVER seen such jubilation at an election result in a democracy in my lifetime. fucking amazing! I’m also with foxtel & i can recommend fox news as a second comedy channell. “Fair and Balanced” is their motto but i’ve really enjoyed the heads exploding on fox today. they are just as devastated and in denial as the boltards! i saw the interview with bill o’reilly and their political correpondent where palin got shat on, one of the insider goss andy left out was palin answering the door to her hotel room to mccain staffers in nothing but a bathrobe. yes, that’s right, their trying on the slut angle as well as the dumb angle. wheres andy’s confected outrage over smearing her? all very silent.
GavinM: guilliani has lost any hope of future tilts at the presidency. labelled one of the losers of this election by Politico for his partisan attack dog shit at the end of the campaign, it’s predicted he’s going to find it hard to regain national credibility. In iraq obama has said he will withdraw troops in 16 to 18 months. if he leaves it any longer he starts to own this war instead of just inheriting it. as i understand prime minister maliki has made strong noises about US troop withdrawal by 2010, so the ducks might line up for obama on that front.
RobJ: go easy on rad. he started today vehement defending palin as intelligent only to have bolt shit in his nest with some insider goss from mccain’s staff. we should allow him some time and space to recover his dignity.
6 November, 2008 at 5:48 pm
muahahahaha.
A brilliant election result.
Blair and Bolt are probably stumbling around in a daze, waving a razorblade at anybody who comes near them and accusing them of being socialists or communists.
The truth is probably too painful for them to handle. The fact that most people don’t think the way they do, and people arn’t as gullible as they once were to conservative dribble.
6 November, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Off topic but Michael Crichton died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton
What will Bolta do for source material now?!
6 November, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Guilliani would have had a crowd of about 100 9/11 rescue workers, at least a couple of dozen dying workers, protesting at every campaign stop if he had become the Republican candidate. Guilliani told many scandalous lies about 9/11 that would never have gone away.
And everyone who worked that pile knows Guilliani wanted to dramatically scale back the digging for bodies the moment about $3oo million in NYC gold was recovered from a vault deep in the ruins. Guilliani threatened workers who refused to stop digging for their friends with arrest. Republicans knew all this, and knew the asbestos-laden stink of 9/11 would follow him everywhere.
The intensity of focus on skin colour over at The Professional Idiot’s is getting beyond creepy. Very disturbing and not at all entertaining.
You’d have to have a heart of stone not to feel joy at seeing so many happy young Americans dancing in the streets of their cities, across the country. So many of these youth hold 9/11 as a defining experience of their childhood (imagine how shattering it would have been to see that when you were 10 or 12?), they’ve lost thousands of their generation in two wars, and watched fellow Americans, abandoned for a week, screaming for help, in a flooded, destroyed city. These kids haven’t exactly had much to be fucking joyous about in the past eight years. Have they?
Christ, let the 70% or so of American youth who voted for Obama dance their hearts out and scream in joy. They’ve fucking earned it, simply by not losing their minds as their country was stripped clean by BushCo. of its wealth and power and dignity.
Obama’s victory was easily the greatest moment in American history in decades, but look at all the bile and hatred Boltists spew. Yeah, I know I don’t have to look, but it’s so surreal….and dark. It’s hard to be believe there are even a few dozen people who feel this way, and want to share it with others.
They lost conservative rule in Australia and the United States in just one year. Their ideas and principles have been rejected by the majority of people in most of the world today. It’s melting their minds.
7 November, 2008 at 7:01 am
RobJ: go easy on rad. he started today vehement defending palin as intelligent only to have bolt shit in his nest with some insider goss from mccain’s staff. we should allow him some time and space to recover his dignity.
LOL whatever!
Even if it is true what they say about palin, it still doesn’t change the possibility of her running in 2012. The public have a very short memory and a few media stories about her answering the door, wrapped in a towel, or her shopping for a wardrobe or even her yelling at her staff are not going to be part of the public media domain in 4 years. Look at Rudd. He is known for being an egotistical Nazi with his staff and it hasn’t affected his popularity.
BTW – I am so glad that some of you saw the
On an RDO, I spent most of the day shopping, and the momentous occasion that yesterday was, was highlighted by the large group of people who watched Obama’s speech live, on one of the big Plasmas in Myers. I happened to notice that some in the crowd were overtaken by the emotion of the event, and shed a tear or too
Yes, I bet gay people in California were celebrating the election of Obama and what the passing of proposition 8 means. The first time a law has been passed that is specifically designed to openly discriminate and promote bigotry.
Yes the dawn of Obama will bring a new age.
7 November, 2008 at 7:20 am
It’s interesting to see that an overwhelming percentage of the African American community voted for Obama, while 75% of African American women voted for Proposition 8. this is the kind of message Obama’s supporters are sending him.
So before you all get too carried away with celebrating Obama’s win, I thought that you just might want to reflect on what this all means. Those tears of joy may be a little premature, especially when we have no idea what Obama means when he says that Change has now arrived in the USA. Given the popularity of proposition 8 amongst the minority group that most supported Obama (African Americans), that change may not be all that big. Especially if Obama wants their votes in 2012.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
7 November, 2008 at 8:15 am
Ahh Matt – trying his oldest and most well used tactic.
Once it becomes obvious that reality has revealed his argument to be idiotic he immediately moves on to another, hoping that this will somehow lessen the sting of being shown up as a total and complete moron.
Now that Palin is revealed for the ignoramus she always was, and Bolt’s utter double standard is highlighted by his meek acceptance of unsourced Fox gossip about her, it’s “blacks are homophobic and you just elected a blackie!!”.
Matt – you’re a fucking tool. And you’re a coward for refusing to face up to the reality of your previous positions.
7 November, 2008 at 8:19 am
rad what are you on about? why do you think just because black people voted for obama that they should vote in favour of gay marriage? and why should how people vote on gay marriage take anything away from obama’s victory?
7 November, 2008 at 8:29 am
“Even if it is true what they say about palin, it still doesn’t change the possibility of her running in 2012. ”
I think you’re underestimating the intelligence of your average idiot…
She’s finished, you’re in denial. Props for coming back and defending you’re absurd stance on Palin though.
7 November, 2008 at 8:36 am
rad what are you on about? why do you think just because black people voted for obama that they should vote in favour of gay marriage? and why should how people vote on gay marriage take anything away from obama’s victory?
Obama made it clear that he did not support same-sex marriage. Also buy analysing the exit polls, the largest minority groups that supported Obama also supported proposition 8. My point has nothing to do with black people being homophobic as MR tried to pin on me, rather it reflects the status of the US being a centre right conservative country. Obama has not and will not change that.
Given that Obama has stated that “Change” has now arrived to the US, I am sceptical that this “Change” will be meaningful or different to the status quo.
Before we all get drunk with the election of Obama, people need to reflect on what Obama means by “Change”. Especially when you consider that he never said what that change is.
7 November, 2008 at 8:39 am
Hello Confessions,
I missed the Giuliani partisan stuff at the end of the campaign, must have got buried in everything else that’s been going on, you’re right that will have cost him dearly.
16 to 18 months to pull out of Iraq sounds reasonable given the positive progress that is beginning to be made there.
Darryl,
I hadn’t heard of Giuliani ordering digging to be stopped because of cash being found, that’s scandalous if true.
7 November, 2008 at 8:40 am
I think you’re underestimating the intelligence of your average idiot…
Just look at Rudd’s performance as PM over the last 12 months and then look at his popularity rating. Rudd is an example of how the public can be blind to an egotistical, control freak who is an ignoramious when it comes to governing a country.
For an example refer to Rudd’s leaked call about Bush and the childish “hey look over there” cover-up he is trying to use.
7 November, 2008 at 8:50 am
rad: now your startign to sound just like bolt. the same shit that was rolled out when rudd was elected about how he’ll be hijacked by the left, he hoodwinked people into voting for him by posing as a conservative is being applied to obama.
“Just look at Rudd’s performance as PM over the last 12 months ”
rudd has been much more effective than howard was in his first year as PM. all those ministers lost, the failure to respond to pauline hanson racism, the backdown on election promises, the slashing of government services and programs that never recovered. the only issue i have with rudd is sometimes he has poor judgement, like with all that overseas travel. but this is something that comes with experience and most first term PMs grow into the role as they gain confidence. so far he’s been fine.
7 November, 2008 at 8:54 am
“Just look at Rudd’s performance as PM over the last 12 months and then look at his popularity rating. Rudd is an example of how the public can be blind to an egotistical, control freak who is an ignoramious when it comes to governing a country.”
So, Rudd’s a control freak and a liar (all politicians are), he’s also a very intelligent man and not an utter ignoramus like say…. Sarah Palin.
Comparisons between Rudd and Palin are laughable and just highlights what we already know about you, that is that anyone left of John Howard would never have the support of people like errrrr YOU!
“Just look at Rudd’s performance as PM over the last 12 months and then look at his popularity rating.”
Hmmm, he’s not perfect, so what? I bet he knows Africa is actually a continent.
He’s light years ahead of Howard and he doesn’t stick the boot into children of asylum seekers, you know, try to trick us that asylum seekers might be terrorists, or that parents threw their children overboard. probably why he’s quite popular, John Howard set the bar so low…
Anyway, you still feel that Palin will be a credible candidate for 2012. LMAO
7 November, 2008 at 8:57 am
rad: now your startign to sound just like bolt. the same shit that was rolled out when rudd was elected about how he’ll be hijacked by the left, he hoodwinked people into voting for him by posing as a conservative is being applied to obama
OK then confessions. Then explain what Obama means when he says that “change” has arrived in the USA? Also lets us know what policies he plans to enact to make that change?
7 November, 2008 at 9:00 am
For an example refer to Rudd’s leaked call about Bush and the childish “hey look over there” cover-up he is trying to use.
Says the king of the “hey look over there” cover up. Funny how we’re now discussing Obama’s position on Gay marriage rather than your blatantly stupid, and now transparently incorrect, conclusions about Palin – how did that happen Matt?
The first time a law has been passed that is specifically designed to openly discriminate and promote bigotry.
Fuck you’re a retard. Do you know how many discriminatory laws have been passed in the US?
7 November, 2008 at 9:04 am
“Says the king of the “hey look over there” cover up. ”
Exactly…. I don’t think you’ll find many over at this blog defending Rudd on this one.
Hey Rad, have you read about Palin’s extravagant shopping spree yet? Apparently she was told to buy three suits and hire a stylist. $150K later and her kids decked out in Gucci. Not only is she stupid, she’s a bit liberal with other peoples money too..
7 November, 2008 at 9:07 am
Hmmm, he’s not perfect, so what? I bet he knows Africa is actually a continent.
You have missed my point. The rumours coming out of the press are nothing and will not effect Palin if she decides to run in 2012. The issue that will matter more to voters in 2012 will be what Palin plans to do to solve those issues. Not what she wore when opening a door in 2008 or what some reporter said about her knowalge of africa. Also her chances in 2012 will also depend on how successful Obama is in his first term. If Obama is a disaster then voters in 4 years will be focused on the issues coming out of Obama’s presidency.
BTW – The thing about not knowing where Africa is, that’s nothing more than gossip from the press. Rudd tried to make out bush didn’t know what the G20 was and that myth has been blown out of the water. I doubt voters in 2012 will even remember that one, especially if palin spends the next 4 years exposing her profile to the American people via the media.
7 November, 2008 at 9:09 am
rad: now what the fuck are you on about? your like a grasshopper – hop here, jump there, hop somewhere else. i can’t keep up.
“$150K later and her kids decked out in Gucci. ”
i read somewhere her referred to as a niemann marxist with saks appeal.
7 November, 2008 at 9:12 am
When even Bolt is attacking Palin she is dead in the water. The Republicans are looking for someone to blame and she is it.
She won’t be back as the machine will destroy any chances she has. She did not poll well, did not drag any major voting block with her. If she could not do it this time she will not do it in 2012.
7 November, 2008 at 9:12 am
“You have missed my point. The rumours coming out of the press are nothing and will not effect Palin if she decides to run in 2012.”
You’re insane. I really can’t be bothered reading the rest of your post.
7 November, 2008 at 9:22 am
What is with Bolt and black people?
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/column_how_obama_really_heals/#commentsmore
7 November, 2008 at 10:38 am
@ Dam Buster
You wrote “She won’t be back as the machine will destroy any chances she has. She did not poll well, did not drag any major voting block with her. If she could not do it this time she will not do it in 2012.”
I think you’re missing a few things.
1) Palin was a huge hit with the fundies. So i might not be that she attracted voters but she did manage to retain quite a few that weren’t going to vote.
2) There are already a few in the GOP that are talking about Palin as their candidate in 2012.
3) The scariest thing about her, to my mind anyway, is that she is a reconstructionist. Now hat gives me the shivers.
7 November, 2008 at 10:57 am
You are exactly right on all three points Christopher. Now add to that Obama not living up to expectations in his first term and you have possibility of palin running against Obama in 2012. Now if Obama is a huge success, then I believe Palin chances are virtually nil.
Until 2012, the focus is now on Obama as president. It should be interesting to see how he performs. Given the once in a generation economic crisis, 2 wars and the massive expectations people have of him, I would not want to be in his position now. For Obama it is make or break.
At least it will make for some really fascinating media and politics over the next 4 years.
7 November, 2008 at 11:09 am
I hope Obama can deliver his promises for all Americans, but I’m not sure of the appropriateness of his wife giving the black power salute at the rally in Chicago — after all a lot of white people voted for him too.
7 November, 2008 at 11:12 am
“For Obama it is make or break. ” – Pip
You don’t say.
7 November, 2008 at 11:14 am
Gavin,
I look forward to them doing the ‘terrorist fist jab’ at every opportunity.
7 November, 2008 at 11:19 am
Now add to that Obama not living up to expectations in his first term and you have possibility of palin running against Obama in 2012. Now if Obama is a huge success, then I believe Palin chances are virtually nil.
Are you somehow unaware, Matt, that what you’re describing above are reasons why a Republican might or might not win against Obama and are quite clearly not reasons why Palin specifically might win?
Apparently you have somehow failed to recognise that Palin’s problem is that she will never agin be nominated by the Republicans as a candidate now that her ignorant small-town politics have been exposed to the world.
7 November, 2008 at 11:25 am
I hope Obama can deliver his promises for all Americans
It will be like pushing shit uphill. The US economy is in a mess, the house foreclosure rate is close to 15% and unemployment is predicted to hit 8% in a country where unemployment benefits cut off after a few months. So there is a massive amount of people in the US that will get seriously burned over the next couple of years because of this.
Even though none of this is Obama’s fault, their expectations of what Obama can do is extremely high.
A good example is a city like Cleveland Ohio which has been decimated by the economic crisis. Because of this, support for Obama in this city was massive and it is one of the main reasons he won Ohio as the rural areas all went for McCain.
Now if they don’t see any change for the better, they will revert back to the republican party in 2012. Now repeat that across the US and 2012 could see a similar electoral map to 2004.
7 November, 2008 at 11:30 am
Are you somehow unaware, Matt, that what you’re describing above are reasons why a Republican might or might not win against Obama and are quite clearly not reasons why Palin specifically might win?
I never said that Palin would specifically win. I have said that for her to have a chance in 2012, the prospects for the republican party as a whole have to rise. If that happens as a result of vote discontent with Obama’s first term, then palin has a good chance of winning the republican ticket to run against Obama. Especially if she spends the next 4 years working on increasing her appeal to the republican base.
Keep in mind that independents do not vote in the GOP primaries, so for Palin to win the Republican ticket in 2012, it is 100% about her appeal to the republican base and heartland.
7 November, 2008 at 11:43 am
rad you’ve fallen into the boltard logic of wishing and hoping and praying for an obama failure. just like the sheep twist themselves inside out hoping rudd fails. instead of wishing the guy falls over why can’t you just put aside your party politics and hope for the world’s sake that obama presidency is successful? he hasn’t even been swarn in and your already talking about the next election! get real man!!
7 November, 2008 at 11:44 am
RadMatt, you are the eternal optimist. You never give up the hope that the forces of ignorance and darkness will re-group and return in triumph, even when they are in total eclipse. Well, you’re probably right, they always do eventually. You go RadMatt! Keep Hope Alive!
7 November, 2008 at 11:56 am
rad you’ve fallen into the boltard logic of wishing and hoping and praying for an obama failure. just like the sheep twist themselves inside out hoping rudd fails. instead of wishing the guy falls over why can’t you just put aside your party politics and hope for the world’s sake that obama presidency is successful?
I am not wishing for him to fail. I am sceptical that he can succeed because he has the least amount of experience of any other ne president in an era when the US if facing some of the biggest challenges in a century.
Even though some of you have faith in his abilities, these abilities have never been tested. Personally, I believe Hilary or McCain would have been far better to handle the challenges the US face. Obama’s experience compared to these two is small.
RadMatt, you are the eternal optimist. You never give up the hope that the forces of ignorance and darkness will re-group and return in triumph, even when they are in total eclipse. Well, you’re probably right, they always do eventually.
And you are delusional. The world is facing one of the biggest economic crisis’s in a century and out of all the candidates applying for the most powerful position in the world, the candidate with the least experience wins the job. So it’s not about good verses evil, it is about having the best person at the wheel when we hit the biggest storm in our lifetimes.
7 November, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“The world is facing one of the biggest economic crisis’s in a century and out of all the candidates applying for the most powerful position in the world, the candidate with the least experience wins the job. So it’s not about good verses evil, it is about having the best person at the wheel when we hit the biggest storm in our lifetimes.”
Well RadMatt, you don’t have to worry. As I said, the bad dudes always come back eventually, and they’ll fix the economic crisis (’s) just like they did last time: by deregulating everything, letting the market rip, and spending trillions on waging war. Seemed to work OK last time. ["crisis's"? What "crisis's"?]
“I am not wishing for him to fail.”
RadMatt, you told a porky, didn’t you? Come on, you’re not fooling anyone, just own up or the whole class will have to stay in….
7 November, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Rad,
Please stop flogging a dead horse, it’s getting very boring — on a Federal political level Palin is gone — and there is every chance after Troopergate that she will be turfed out as Governor of Alaska in 2010 as well.
Given that this is the worst financial crisis to hit the world since the 1930’s depression, it seems unlikely that Obama will be able to solve it by 2012 — do you really think that Palin would be the right person to then take over from him ?
7 November, 2008 at 12:22 pm
— do you really think that Palin would be the right person to then take over from him ?
My argument isn’t that Palin would do a better job. I am disputing those that claim that palin has no hope in hell in 2012. I agree that she is no where near experienced as McCain and Hilary, but given 4 years it is well within her abilities to gain that experience.
BTW – Palin was cleared of troopergate on Monday and given the investigations that have happened to previous presidential candidates like the Clintons, I doubt that troopergate is really an issue that would effect her politically. Even after all the history the clintons had, Hilary was still a serious contender in 2008.
7 November, 2008 at 12:24 pm
just in case you wanted a link gavin
http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election-2008/palin-cleared-in-troopergate-case-20081104-5hoy.html
7 November, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Here’s an interesting bit of Palin conjecture from Rachel Maddow. If Ted Stevens ends up winning the Senate election but then resigns due to his conviction, Palin gets to appoint his replacement. But she could resign and get her Lieutenant-Governor to appoint her to the Senate seat – and it’s even been done before.
7 November, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Rad, Palin was cleared by the Personnel Board (a body whose staff are appointed, and can be fired by, the Governor) investigation, but not by the (bipartisan) legislature’s investigation. That doesn’t leave her smelling of roses.
7 November, 2008 at 12:30 pm
That doesn’t leave her smelling of roses.
It is rare that any Politician is left smelling of roses. That’s why politicans rank in the same relm as usedcar salemen.
7 November, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“I am not wishing for him to fail.”
sure rad you’ve talked of nothing else today in your attempt to justify a palin presidency in 2012. obama could be disaster, he could be excellent. i prefer to think he’ll do okay because he’s shown so far that he is smart and has acute political savvy. but i could be wrong, only time will tell.
7 November, 2008 at 12:36 pm
If Ted Stevens ends up winning the Senate election but then resigns due to his conviction, Palin gets to appoint his replacement. But she could resign and get her Lieutenant-Governor to appoint her to the Senate seat – and it’s even been done before.
Interesting. If she gets into the senate, then there is no stopping her. If she doesn’t make 2012, then she will be able to go in 2016 and even 2020 given that she is only 44.
7 November, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I wouldn’t be taking too much notice of that finding Rad, it seems highly unlikely that people who can be hired and fired by the Governor are going to find against her.
As I said, I think Federally she’s had her biscuits — I really can’t imagine the Republicans nominating her to run for 2012, let alone see her actually win the ticket.
What is perhaps more disturbing about the financial crisis we’re seeing now is that the last one, which I have seen financial experts saying wasn’t as big as this, was only solved by World War 2 — so where does that leave us in today’s global climate ?
7 November, 2008 at 1:12 pm
“Interesting. If she gets into the senate, then there is no stopping her. If she doesn’t make 2012, then she will be able to go in 2016 and even 2020″
no stopping her…. hmm I thought you said there was only a chance for her? Rad you are fuller than McCain’s colostomy bag.
But by then she will be a Hockey Grandmom… :P
what about 2024, 2028, oohh fuck it lets go for ‘PALIN 2036′ when she will be McCain’s age.
7 November, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Obama is definitely the right person at this time. It’s a question of judgement and courage. Obama has both.
It’s not as though you are looking for a person as president who can personally fix the problems. What is required is someone with sound judgement who can get together the right team of people to fix the problem and set them working on it. The way Obama has run his campaign it’s obvious that his judgement when it comes to putting a team together and setting them to work , is exceptional. And he has the courage to take on a near Sisyphean task – a first time senator, just 2 years into his first term, not only runs for the Democratic nomination but eventually wins the presidency. Wow.
McCain – chooses a running mate who is highly dubious at best. How’s that for judgement? And she isn’t chosen on her suitability for the eventual task she is put foward for, ie running the country, but for her ability to appeal to a sub-set of conservative voters.
And then there’s Palin herself, who lacked the critical self-awareness to turn down the offer.
7 November, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Interesting. If she gets into the senate, then there is no stopping her.
You’re fucking delusional Matt. If she manipulates her way into the senate then her presidency is a done deal? What an utterly ridiculous assertion that completely fails to even contemplate the reality about Palin as a candidate. She wasn’t rejected due to lack of experience – she was rejected because not enough of the American public were interested in buying what she was selling.
That won’t change after four years in the Senate.
There’s no point engaging you further on this. The slow march of time will reveal your predictions to be the baseless projections that they really are.
7 November, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“Even after all the history the clintons had, Hilary was still a serious contender in 2008.”
RadMatt, listen closely: Hillary was still a serious contender in 2008 BECAUSE SHE HAD A CLUE. Spot the difference.
7 November, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Hello Michael,
Sorry, missed your reply earlier…I’m not sure that I’d refer to it as a ‘terrorist fist jab’ although I know some people do — but one thing I do know is that it is a divisive symbol in the USA and probably isn’t the right message for a newly elected President’s wife to be waving around, particularly when a key part of that President’s election platform has been all about unity….
7 November, 2008 at 1:40 pm
rad’s defiant defence of palin is like the bolt sheep who can’t accept she’s as dumb as she’s been protrayed. they are blaming the media for these leaks about her. a hint guys, the stuff about sth africa and the clothes came FROM the mccain staffers TO the media.
7 November, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Gavin – are you sure Michelle Obama raised the ‘black power’ fist during the acceptance rally in Chicago?
I’ve not seen it reported anywhere, and would expect that such an act would have been widely criticised had it occurred. I also watched the speech and can’t recall it happening.
Do you have any links that you can provide in this regard?
7 November, 2008 at 3:25 pm
confessions – yeah but is it still the MSM bias! those bastards.
7 November, 2008 at 4:56 pm
dam buster: the palin luvvies prevail! it IS media bias.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/palin_defended_against_faceless_critic/
and surprise surprise rads fave meme gets a mention as well.
7 November, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Where are all those who went on ad nauseum yesterday about Bolt cutting Palin adrift ?
Hasn’t Bolt just reported what was said and today admonished these faceless leaks?
And small c confessions, now I know that Palin doesn’t always come across as the very sharpest tool in the shed, but do you really think this woman is as “dumb as has been portrayed?” I mean, come on. You don’t magically rise to become Governor if you are actually dumb. Such comments show your own flagrant bias. Criticise her by all means because there are many fronts on which to do this. But a person who can’t press shift on a keyboard calling a woman who is Governor of Alaska dumb? Anybody agree?
7 November, 2008 at 5:21 pm
“You don’t magically rise to become Governor if you are actually dumb”
Unless you’re in small-town Alaska where creationism is above science and politics is below reason.
7 November, 2008 at 5:43 pm
“but do you really think this woman is as “dumb as has been portrayed?” ”
yes daics i do. and if what the mccain people are saying true then she’s dumber than she was protrayed at the start. and just saying she’s governor means shit. if your point is only smart people are elected by the voting public then you are either niaive or have been asleep during the bush and iemma and years.
7 November, 2008 at 5:43 pm
There’s more than one kind of smart, and more than one kind of dumb. In watching Sarah Palin speak on the national stage, the thing that came across is that she seems to lack intellectual curiosity. It seems that she has very limited knowledge and opinions about national and international issues. She might have good management skills, negotiation skills, etc., but it was that lack of a personal interest and appreciation of the range of issues that would confront a federal politician. Most of the impressive politicians clearly know and care about something – it might not be the things I agree with, but her range of focus seemed to be very limited.
7 November, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“She might have good management skills, negotiation skills, etc”
do you really think that tobias given what we now know about some of what happened during her governoship and mayorship? if anything i’d say she is like brian burke in she knows how to play people off against each other and how to play the favours game. but even brian burke had some political nouse, palin put her husband in the governors office to dig for dirt on her ex brother in law and as mayor targetted other councilors who disagreed with her or voted against her on issues. how dumb is that? doesn’t she know that politicians and public officials have veeeeerrrrrryyyyyy long memories and just luuurrrrve karma? never piss people off when your a pollie, especially other pollies – it ALWAYS comes back to haunt you!
7 November, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Palin has no chance in 2012 really, considering the fact that you have your face on camera and in the spotlight as much as possible. She pretty much fluffed anything that’s wasn’t rehearsed, she wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the republican primaries against some other war hero.
Both Obama & McCain won their party nominations because they were the most liberal their party had and thats what the voters wanted.
Conservatives tend to win elections based on things they are opponents of like equal marriage rights and gun control. If American implements equal marriage rights in the next four years you will probably see Republicans waging a hateful camgapign against gay people like they did against muslims.
8 November, 2008 at 8:57 am
Guys I think that you will find that all those rumors about Palin were nothing more than horse shit lies. I can’t believe that you all fell for it. it’s like the first crap about her youngest son being her daughter’s. I would have thought that you would have learned your lesson the first time. you should never believe a rumor in the media when the name of the source is never given.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/palin-aide-offe.html
8 November, 2008 at 9:21 am
“Guys I think that you will find that all those rumors about Palin were nothing more than horse shit lies. ”
Her mocking of fruit fly research was enough for me, that was real, there’s a link to the transcript somewhere on this blog. The fact that she mocks that but would like to see a cure for autism highlights her ignorance.. If she isn’t ignorant then clearly she was trying to mislead the ignorant masses, either way I don’t want anyone like that anywhere near the Whitehouse.
BTW, your link doesn’t disprove the claims that she’s a dud and an ignorant dud at that.
“you should never believe a rumor in the media when the name of the source is never given. ”
Like the crap that Glenn Milne writes? You’re right however I didn’t need hindsight or rumours to realise that Palin was waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of her depth.
8 November, 2008 at 9:49 am
Confessions, I am not convinced that she has those particular skills (and I suspect she might have some of the more Machiavellian ones you mention), but my fundamental point was that there were certain things that, for me, she clearly demonstrated she lacked – and a critical and engaged approach to thinking about policy issues was the big one.
We can speculate about whether the rumours about what she was like out of the spotlight are true or false, but to me it doesn’t matter – she said and did enough on the record to establish that she doesn’t have an inquiring mind.
8 November, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I know this is slightly off topic – but the best thing for me about the recent election is that all the best propaganda efforts of the neo-cons – the entire Murdoch media network including Fox News, even Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair and others – failed miserably. Flaming irrational fears, based on people who are slightly different, doesn’t always win votes. Maybe there’s hope for us after all.
8 November, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Palin crying to CNN:
“Those were taken out of context and that’s cruel,” Palin said. “It’s mean-spirited. It’s immature. It’s unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context, and then tried to spread something on national news.”"
LOL – All that BS she spouted abut Obama – he’s gonna raise your taxes, he’s a socialist (God knows why that’s an insult?) He’s been palling around with terrorists.
When the shoe is on the other foot she doesn’t seem to like it much. What a hypocrite.
Schadenfreude – priceless…….
8 November, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“I know this is slightly off topic – but the best thing for me about the recent election is that all the best propaganda efforts of the neo-cons – the entire Murdoch media network including Fox News, even Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair and others – failed miserably. Flaming irrational fears, based on people who are slightly different, doesn’t always win votes. Maybe there’s hope for us after all.”
Good point. Flaming irrational fears, based on people who are slightly different, does seem to have its moment in the presence of a real or imagined threat to national security, or in the aftermath of a 9/11 type moment. However when the understandable shock as a result of these things wanes, Bolt, Blair, Fox News type stuff, greatly loses its influence. It is comforting to consider that for all the ramblings of these clowns that couldnt prevent the change movements here and in the US.
8 November, 2008 at 2:20 pm
BTW, your link doesn’t disprove the claims that she’s a dud and an ignorant dud at that
FFS Dude. The onus of proof is on those claiming she behaved and said those things. The link I provided was one of Palin’s aides accounts of what happened. Opposed to the rumors which are from an anonymous source. As Diacs stated, the rumors just don’t make sense anyway. You hate her so much dude that you are willing to believe anything.
8 November, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Sorry, I’m claiming she’s a DUD, and I use the fruit fly to back up my claim…
Your link doesn’t DISprove, get it?
“You hate her so much dude that you are willing to believe anything.”
Sure Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. I dislike right wing creationist bigots, who doesn’t? Other right wing bigots?
8 November, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Ron, you don’t have to hate Palin or believe rumours to be able to see that she was singularly ill-equipped for the high office she was seeking. There is quite enough damning evidence on the public record, much of it coming out of her own mouth. She is a creationist. She believes in the literal truth of the Bible. She believes Adam and Eve hung out in the Garden of Eden with dinosaurs about 6000 years ago. She opposes gun control. She kills things for fun. She opposes abortion for rape victims. She thinks the answer to the energy crisis is to find more oil. She opposes sex education. None of this is a matter of conjecture. We don’t need to be told she doesn’t know Africa is a continent rather than a country to be able to make the judgement that she was an unsuitable candidate.
10 November, 2008 at 10:57 am
Hi Mondo,
I’m still trying to post that link…
Comments are closed.