She’s Dying in the Frost

Palin lifted her Green Eggs ‘n Ham CPAC riff from a chain email. I guess that’s about what you’d expect from someone whose PAC has raised $1.1 million and made one $5,000 contribution to a candidate for this cycle.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






166 replies
  1. 1
    Karen in GA says:

    Lost Moronna of the WASPs.

  2. 2

    Well, our Lady of Perpetual Stupidity is pretty much like a walking version of my wingnut relatives’ Facebook posts, so this is hardly surprising.

  3. 3
    burnspbesq says:

    Can someone explain why Palin is still considered relevant?

  4. 4
    Elizabelle says:

    Who cares?

  5. 5
    cleek says:

    @burnspbesq:
    she’s relevant as an example of how stupid the GOP base is. nothing more.

  6. 6
    brettvk says:

    It would be lovely if the GOPpers would just give shoutouts to their sources or have their minions google their clever anecdotes to see where they come from. I know they won’t, because they face absolutely no penalties for plagiarism, but I have to wonder what their college work looked like. As a one-time TA who faced fraud papers that were an absolute insult to my intelligence, I take this stuff personally.

  7. 7
    Belafon says:

    @burnspbesq: Because, no matter how much you want to ignore her, she still gets invited to conservative political events and shows up on the news. As long as some people are willing to say “Ha! Palin quoted form Dr. Seuss” we will have to mock them.

  8. 8
    maya says:

    U.S. Plagiarist Laureate contender?

  9. 9
    Poopyman says:

    @burnspbesq: Says more about the MSM than anything else, really.

  10. 10
    brettvk says:

    @burnspbesq: Well, she did get 2% in the 2016 presidential straw poll at CPAC — 4-way tie with Huckabee, Jindal & Rice. I think a Rice-Palin ticket would be interesting. Sure to recapture the women’s and POC vote for the Republicans.

  11. 11
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Karen in GA: Speaking as a WASP, she ain’t one of us. Not unless you cast a really, really broad net. The Bushes, sure. We have to live with that. But not Palin.

  12. 12
    NonyNony says:

    @brettvk:

    I have to wonder what their college work looked like. As a one-time TA who faced fraud papers that were an absolute insult to my intelligence, I take this stuff personally.

    I would assume that these days, young Republican college students make heavy use of fiverr for their homework. I’d fill this up with links to show you examples to make yourself weep, but just do a search there for:

    Math homework
    Essay assignments
    Research papers
    Programming assignments
    or just “assignments” if you really want to cry tears of pure anguish.

    For $5 each you too can have someone else do your homework for you, subverting the purpose of homework entirely. Guarantee yourself an easy float through roughly 90% of the work that you need to do in your classes in exchange for knowing fuck all about the topic when you’re done. And, if your profs are even 10% as smart as they think they are, you won’t be able to do jack shit on their final exams and you’ll fail the class anyway. What a deal!

  13. 13
    Amir Khalid says:

    @burnspbesq:
    As long as there’s a chance that Tina Fey can be persuaded to do her Sarah impression again, by all means keep Sarah Palin in the news.

  14. 14
    Yet another lurker says:

    @Karen in GA: Robyn Hitchcock reference FTW

  15. 15
    Yet another lurker says:

    @Karen in GA: Robyn Hitchcock reference FTW

  16. 16
    Yet another lurker says:

    @Karen in GA: Robyn Hitchcock reference FTW

  17. 17
    BGinCHI says:

    What do you expect from the Yellow Queen?

  18. 18
    MomSense says:

    Can all these Republican asshats please just leave Dr. Seuss alone?!?! I don’t think even they get the point of the book. By the end of the book, Sam I am actually tries the green eggs and ham and likes them.

  19. 19
    feebog says:

    Not only was she invited to speak at CPAC, she was the keynote speaker. Speaks volumes about these idiots.

  20. 20
    Mark S. says:

    She called the Ukraine so she’s back baby!

  21. 21
    BGinCHI says:

    @Mark S.: I’m surprised she can even dial a phone.

  22. 22
    Gindy51 says:

    She’s selling her tour bus too.
    http://www.ocrvmotorcoaches.co.....82157.html
    At least there are no dents in the fridge, unlike at her AK residence.

  23. 23
    Roger Moore says:

    @MomSense:

    By the end of the book, Sam I am actually tries the green eggs and ham and likes them.

    You don’t actually expect them to read a book all the way through to the end, do you? They don’t need no fancy book larnin’!

  24. 24

    @brettvk: I’m still waiting to see how Teddy the Wonder Lizard polled compared to her. I’d go with the lizard every time.

  25. 25
    NonyNony says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Can someone explain why Palin is still considered relevant?

    She was the keynote speaker at CPAC.

    Now if you want to move this to an argument about CPAC’s relevance these days I’m open to it. I’d sincerely like to believe it’s a mix of con-men and sheep waiting to be fleeced that has no relevance on our politics beyond that anymore. But I’m not convinced.

  26. 26
    srv says:

    I wish that Sarah would run for something so we could hear more about her here all the time.

  27. 27
    Karen in GA says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Hey, it was the best I could do on short notice. Take it up with Robyn Hitchcock.

  28. 28
    ruemara says:

    @cleek: yet they clean our clock in turnout, holding local & state offices, they run most of the media, they own the nation’s purse-shall I go on?

    She ain’t dying at all. She’s rich from these nitwits and not going away. Dismiss their very real power at our peril.

  29. 29
    Woodrowfan says:

    While I have met some gullible lefties over the years (heal your aura! inside job!) righties have got to be the most gullible people on the entire planet. Are there any grifters on the left on the scale of the people on display at CPAC? Michael Moore is a bullshitter, but not on the same scale. At least some of what he says is true. Nadar? Naw, he’s hated by a big chunk of the left. Locally we have Marion Barry but he’s small potatoes, basically a tax cheat, and a lot of his support is because he devoted some of DC’s revenue to the usually-ignored poor 8th ward, so he actually did help some of the people who voted for him. Jessie Jackson? I dunno. I liked him back in the 80s.

    Does anybody on the left or in the Democratic Party match Palin, or Newt, or Santorum (ick) or any of these other clowns for the scale of “send me money” fleecing the rubs?

  30. 30
    boatboy_srq says:

    someone whose PAC has raised $1.1 million and made one $5,000 contribution to a candidate for this cycle

    Grift is expensive.

  31. 31
    Ash Can says:

    So did the e-mail rip off Ted Cruz’s Green Eggs and Ham shtick, or did he rip off the e-mail too? Either way, it’s abundantly clear that there are no “conservatives” bright enough to figure out that the actual message of the book is the exact opposite of what they’re using it to say about the ACA.

  32. 32
    C.V. Danes says:

    Grifters gonna grift.

  33. 33
    Shakezula says:

    That’s some fiscal responsibility there, youbetcha. She has a family to feed, also.

  34. 34
    boatboy_srq says:

    @MomSense: I’m waiting for them to interpret The Lorax as proof that we need more thneeds.

  35. 35
    Redshift says:

    Not only did she plagiarizer the whole riff, she removed and rewrote lines so it doesn’t even rhyme or scan properly. While the original is idiotic in content, at least the author out in the effort to make it more literate than your typical wingnut screed.

  36. 36
    Goblue72 says:

    @ruemara: This a 1,000 times.

  37. 37
    Redshift says:

    @Ash Can: Didn’t Cruz just read Green Eggs and Ham straight up (and ignore the fact that it completely contradicted his message) rather than rewriting it? That was my impression at the time, but I could be wrong, since I didn’t pay close attention.

  38. 38
    Corner Stone says:

    I had MSNBC on a little and they were showing a clip of her speech. It was on mute, thankfully, because her voice is incredibly irritating. But just watching the spastic body language and delivery was amazing. It’s almost like she realized the SNL version Palin was more popular than the real one and she’s morphed further into that caricature.
    Still haven’t heard a word of what she actually said. Based on the gesticulations I think it was something like, “Mars Bitches!”

  39. 39
    jonas says:

    @burnspbesq: Because a lot of people on the right love to marinate themselves in resentment and victimhood and she’s really, really good at affirming their worldview.

  40. 40
    piratedan says:

    @burnspbesq: well she is still breathlessly reported on by the folks who write headlines for both Faux and Newsmax, since they’re in charge of the red meat dispersal, I’d say that makes her relevant. Her ardent followers aren’t as organized as the Paulettes but they’re just as vocal and she embodies what you could consider are the current core GOP values (until they know what Liberals support daily h/t cleek)… Guns for everybody, anti-moocher, pro-intervention and drowning Government in a pro-life baptismal.

  41. 41
    MomSense says:

    @boatboy_srq:

    I’m surprised they haven’t jumped on Horton Hatches the Egg. You’ve got a faithful elephant with integrity who saves an unhatched life and a lazy moocher of a single mom.

  42. 42
    FlipYrWhig says:

    Sarah Palin basically became Ann Coulter.

  43. 43
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @MomSense: They do use “a person’s a person no matter how small.”

  44. 44
    chopper says:

    @Roger Moore:

    she started to read it, but quit halfway through.

  45. 45
    boatboy_srq says:

    @MomSense: I think we learned all we needed to know when Walden Media wrote Silenus and Bacchus out of Prince Caspian because Alcohol and Dancing.

  46. 46
    Gex says:

    So the “P” in CPAC stands for plagiarism? Paul Ryan seemed to have a little bit of trouble with coming up with his own material too. And it could very well be that Rand Paul said was improperly attributed, seeing as he has a habit of that as well.

  47. 47
    MomSense says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    “a person’s a person no matter how small.”

    Too bad they end it with ‘and once it gets bigger we don’t care at all’.

    Libs can play this game also, too.

  48. 48
    srv says:

    MM. could you pretty please liveblog the Snowman’s presentation at SXSW today?

    http://new.livestream.com/texa.....ts/2823117

  49. 49
    Ruckus says:

    @burnspbesq:
    Because she is who the hard core social conservatives trust to talk for them. She is the one who conveys their ideals best. That of course should tell you more about them than you wanted to know. You know the old saying – “Know your enema,”
    Don’t you?

  50. 50
    SatanicPanic says:

    @MomSense: Yertle the Turtle is a visionary and a job creator.

  51. 51
    MomSense says:

    @boatboy_srq:

    Well Aslan did make a pretty formidable chaperone.

  52. 52
    MomSense says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    If only we could just burp them all away. I may start a “going Mack” movement.

  53. 53
    SatanicPanic says:

    If my friends start sending me political messages grafted onto children’s book rhymes they are getting blocked/de-friended. That’s just too dorky to deal with.

  54. 54
    LanceThruster says:

    What scares me is how often a credible Dem challenger in some Glob-forsaken gerrymandered district has to utter, “I can’t believe I’m losing to these people!”

    In the long run though, I think Grandpa Walnuts did us a favor by putting the intellectual depth of the party on display for all to see.

  55. 55
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @burnspbesq:

    We’re talking about her. The MSM notices. Money is made.

    End of explanation.

  56. 56
    GRANDPA john says:

    @Woodrowfan: As Samuel Butler said a couple of centuries ago

    There are more fools than
    knaves in the world else what would the knaves live on

  57. 57
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Redshift:

    He did indeed. Which leaves me wondering how he ever got a law degree, given that his reading comprehension skills are so pathetic.

  58. 58
    PaulW says:

    raises 1.1 million dollars for campaigning funds… only dishes out 50,000.

    Proof – yet again – that political campaigning has turned into a billion dollar racket that is the envy of mafia gangs everywhere.

    Without any oversight laws, without any requirements that these PACs spend a certain percentage towards their stated objectives… all that money can go right into the fund-runners’ pockets and with minimal effort on their parts walk away while the elections flounder in a morass of mudslinging, misogyny, and mayhem.

    Thanks, SCOTUS for giving us Citizens’ United and the system of legalized bribery and kickbacks it brings.

  59. 59
    PurpleGirl says:

    @PaulW: It was $5,000, not $50,000. She has managed to find ways she can use that money for herself.

  60. 60
    opiejeanne says:

    @FlipYrWhig: that’s from Horton Hears A Who.

  61. 61
    jl says:

    Jindal wants some attention.

    Bobby Jindal Wants People To Stop Praising Obama’s Intelligence

    ” Obama conveys weakness to our allies and our enemies, but wise presidents have always understood that American weakness leads to violence, American strength to stability. ”

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l.....telligence

  62. 62
    Ash Can says:

    @Redshift: Yes, he just read it, but the entire idea of using a book whose message is “you shouldn’t say you don’t like something unless you try it first” to denounce something they won’t — or won’t let others — try first is the height of imbecility as far as I’m concerned.

  63. 63
    Mark B. says:

    Sara Palin’s PAC is simply a grift. Only the stupid punters who contribute don’t know that.

  64. 64
    Mark B. says:

    duplicate post.

  65. 65
    PaulW says:

    @PurpleGirl:

    …just $5,000?! JUST $5,000?!?!?!

    /rage intensifies

  66. 66
    Belafon says:

    @jl: Did he miss 9-11? Iraq?

  67. 67
    Mark B. says:

    @PurpleGirl: It’s pretty expensive to administer the funds of a large PAC. It requires lots of travel and entertainment expenses.

  68. 68
    Violet says:

    SarahPAC routinely spends or donates very little to campaign related things. Quarter after quarter she spends the most on postage. Really.

  69. 69
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Mark B.: Maybe she’s spending it on rent like Christine O’Donnell

  70. 70
    Violet says:

    @PaulW: PaulW, this is typical for SarahPAC. Take a look at her quarterly reports for the last several years. Quarter after quarter she spends $5,000 or so on campaign-related things. The rest is “postage” and she pays some consultants and speechwriters–that kind of thing. Oh, and airfare. It’s bizarre. It’s complete grifting.

    People who give her money are helping her jet around, spend most of her time in her Scottsdale, Arizona home (she’s rarely seen in Alaska these days), and who knows what else. Shoes? Tanning?

  71. 71
    Elie says:

    They have no real ideas to present or discuss, so they are left with theater, theatrics and actors. And clowns.

  72. 72
    chopper says:

    @PaulW:

    why are you angry? stupid right-wingers are handing money over to someone who doesn’t actually use it to help goopers win elections. this is great! we need much more of that.

  73. 73
    Cervantes says:

    @PaulW: Rage? You’re looking at it the wrong way. Forget about her (as I keep saying, to no avail). Instead, think about her donors who have less money to give to other causes; and think about candidates she might have funded but did not. If you like, you can also think about the economic activity she’s adding to our national statistics. That’s two or three wins for us — you just have to forget about her — do it now!

  74. 74
    ericblair says:

    @Ash Can:

    Yes, he just read it, but the entire idea of using a book whose message is “you shouldn’t say you don’t like something unless you try it first” to denounce something they won’t — or won’t let others — try first is the height of imbecility as far as I’m concerned.

    I’m beginning to think that the overlap between “people who attend CPAC” and “people who read to their kids and would know this” is rather small.

  75. 75
    NonyNony says:

    @Cervantes:

    Forget about her (as I keep saying, to no avail). Instead, think about her donors who have less money to give to other causes; and think about candidates she might have funded but did not. If you like, you can also think about the economic activity she’s adding to our national statistics. That’s two or three wins for us — you just have to forget about her — do it now!

    This is why I love Sarah Palin unironically. I mean, I hate every vile word that comes out of her mouth, but every dollars worth of donations that she sucks up and uses to jet around the country making public appearances is one less dollar that is being spent on something effective by the right-wing.

    It’s the same reason that these days I actually love right-wing church leaders who hoover up the money from their flock and use it to pay for multi-million dollar church buildings, mansions and cars for themselves, and to keep their mistresses in the lifestyle they’ve become accustomed to. Because every dollar those guys get is one less dollar that goes to a political action committee that might actually DO something that impacts the world negatively. I almost feel like it’s a moral obligation for me to start a right-wing church just to drain the believers of their money before they do something actually harmful with it…

  76. 76
    West of the Rockies says:

    @burnspbesq: She is of importance only to the far-right loons who reach orgasm every time they see her. She is of importance only to the voracious media seeking ratings and the benumbed audience who find stories involving her to be entertaining.

    In the real world, she is as significant as the toenail fungus on Justin Bieber.

    (BTW, anyone see that twit Bieber during his deposition? Google it. What a wretched creature he is.)

  77. 77
    Cervantes says:

    @NonyNony:

    I almost feel like it’s a moral obligation for me to start a right-wing church just to drain the believers of their money before they do something actually harmful with it…

    A moral obligation? It is! It is!

    All you have to do is to name the church in honor of your parents (Exodus 20:12).

  78. 78
    cckids says:

    Has anyone ever heard Sarah say anything gracious, classy, kind or fair about anyone on the other side? EVER?

    Doesn’t listening to all that rage tire them out?

  79. 79
    Cluttered Mind says:

    @NonyNony: Ralph Reed already has that grift monopolized.

  80. 80
    Cluttered Mind says:

    @NonyNony: Ralph Reed already has that grift monopolized.

  81. 81
    West of the Rockies says:

    @cckids: I have wondered about this, too, cc… Rage is a very tiring business! I am astonished that some people go through their days constantly spewing toxic blather. I’m amazed that they don’t all keel over like that fount of rage Breitbart.

  82. 82
    catclub says:

    @chopper: my response, too.

    Rage only at the IRS for allowing their definition of a charitable organization to be watered down.
    [Although it happened in the 1950’s]

  83. 83
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Violet:

    Well, she does have to spend a great deal of time on Seventh Avenue in NYC researching streetwalker fashion. That costs lots of money!

  84. 84
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @jl:

    Instead, we should praise Jindal’s abject stupidity.

  85. 85
    boatboy_srq says:

    @MomSense: LOLSOB. That was heartbreakingly brilliant.

  86. 86
    PaulW says:

    @chopper:

    why are you angry? stupid right-wingers are handing money over to someone who doesn’t actually use it to help goopers win elections. this is great! we need much more of that.

    Because that’s money that could be going towards buying MY books!

    In terms of writing fiction, my sh-t’s a ton lot better written and funnier than her tripe.

  87. 87
    Mike in NC says:

    It ain’t cheap keeping Todd’s snow machine up and running.

  88. 88
    Violet says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: Lest we forget, here’s a picture of Sarah showing off her streetwalker fashion.

  89. 89
    Woodrowfan says:

    @GRANDPA john: along with..

    “I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it.” John Stuart Mill, 1866.

  90. 90
    Corner Stone says:

    @PaulW:

    my sh-t’s a ton lot better written

    Now that’s how you do comedy!

  91. 91
    Plantsmantx says:

    This is funny, considering that the right-wing internet is currently reminding us that Mike Barnicle got into trouble for plagiarism because the called Palin a moron on today’s Morning Joe.

  92. 92
    Corner Stone says:

    @Violet: Looks like a nice outfit. The heels may be a little much, but that’s just me being catty.

  93. 93
    WaterGirl says:

    @Corner Stone: In that photo…. If Palin sticks her chest out any further, she is going to fall over backwards.

    Edit: How is that sexy?

  94. 94
    gian says:

    Having visited the Dr Seuss exhibit at the USA library he help pay for. His Marvin K Mooney will you please go now book was aimed at Richard M Nixon

  95. 95
    West of the Rockies says:

    @Corner Stone: The heels are a bit pornish, yes. Otherwise, she looks like she is about to play the part of “random aging hottie” on an old episode of Mama’s Family.

  96. 96
    Woodrowfan says:

    In that photo…. If Palin sticks her chest out any further, she is going to fall over backwards.

    Edit: How is that sexy?

    I knew a girl who did that and we all thought it was “hot.” But then, we were about 14 years old at the time.

  97. 97
    Corner Stone says:

    @WaterGirl: Are you asking if I, personally, find it sexy? Or is that a general appeal to the commentariat?

    I don’t find any issue with Palin based on looks. She offers more than enough “intellectual” material to lampoon her. Her use of the phrase, “Todd got the rifle and I got the rack” probably opens her up to some fair criticism of how she sells herself to her audience, but I generally don’t care to attack people on that vector.

    edited slightly

  98. 98
    WaterGirl says:

    @Woodrowfan: Right! As a grown woman, I look at that and think “she’s trying too hard”, and I don’t see how/why that would be considered sexy by a grown man.

    Since I’m not a grown man and I am clearly not the intended audience, I am willing to be told I am wrong.

  99. 99
    WaterGirl says:

    @Corner Stone: Either or both, really. See my comment in response to Woodrowfan at/around 98. Looking like you’re trying too hard is a big turnoff to me… just trying to understand whether grown men think she looks hot in that photo.

    I agree, though, that what she says is way more important than how she looks.

  100. 100
    Cervantes says:

    @WaterGirl: She looks utterly ridiculous in that picture.

    It does not help that I can’t get past all the other things she has said and done.

  101. 101
    Corner Stone says:

    @WaterGirl: I personally can’t stand her nasal and irritating voice, much less her stupid approximation of politics. But based solely on looks, I find her to be an attractive woman.

    If she were just an acquaintance, and not “Sarah Palin”, I would make sure to find myself where she was not.

  102. 102
    Violet says:

    @Corner Stone: Sarah Palin’s looks are one thing. Her choice of attire is another. What she wears is a choice. She chooses to dress like she’s selling her physical wares. I think it’s fair game to mock her for that. It’s mocking her choice.

  103. 103
    Botsplainer says:

    @Corner Stone:

    I personally can’t stand her nasal and irritating voice, much less her stupid approximation of politics. But based solely on looks, I find her to be an attractive woman.

    Ditto. I would totally tap that based on looks and the obvious crazy factor (don’t judge me – I always liked bunny boilers on a short term basis if 1) I could somehow keep my name secret and 2) the fling lasted for no longer than a three day weekend), but am repelled due to the nasal voice.

  104. 104
    Chris says:

    @Woodrowfan:

    While I have met some gullible lefties over the years (heal your aura! inside job!) righties have got to be the most gullible people on the entire planet. Are there any grifters on the left on the scale of the people on display at CPAC?

    No. The environment just isn’t the same. The Republican Party from top to bottom is full of people who can no longer tell the truth from their own wishes (from Romney’s “unskewed polls” to Joe Sixpack not wanting to “believe” in evolution), so the opportunities for grift are greater. It also pretty openly praises grifters with no experience other than screwing people out of their money, to the point of putting them on the presidential tickets, so the rewards are greater.

  105. 105
    Corner Stone says:

    @Violet: Sure. She’s selling an image, like most other entertainers. She’s using what she’s got, to be crude about it. And you’re right, that is her choice.
    I don’t really care enough about her to pay much attention or go out of my way to see what buffoonery she has engaged in. This thread may be the most comments I have ever involved myself in re: SP.

    But taken out of this specific context, unless it’s Cole, I try not to disparage people based on looks. I feel that, as a very handsome man, it’s my obligation to not look down upon others less fortunate.

  106. 106
    Chris says:

    @NonyNony:

    I almost feel like it’s a moral obligation for me to start a right-wing church just to drain the believers of their money before they do something actually harmful with it…

    Someone should seriously do this… and then, years and years and years into the con, eventually come out as a liberal and say “yeah, I’ve been scamming you. LOLPSYCH!” And then watch all the televangelists start accusing each other of being liberal plants. Like the old Ku Klux Klan chapters fighting over who was really an FBI informant.

  107. 107
    boatboy_srq says:

    @Chris:

    It also pretty openly praises grifters with no experience other than screwing people out of their money, to the point of putting them on the presidential tickets

    When you get that sort elected governors of key states (FL, WI and SC spring immediately to mind here), it’s a fair assessment of the marketability of snake oil.

  108. 108
    WaterGirl says:

    @Corner Stone: I think comments on big noses and thick ankles and naturally curly hair are all out of bounds; what bugs me about her is how she uses what she’s got. (That was me agreeing with you.)

    But I have to agree – this is my longest conversation about SP ever. So maybe I’ll call it a day on this one!

  109. 109
    opiejeanne says:

    @PaulW: you write? Tell me a title please so I can buy one.

  110. 110
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @WaterGirl:

    I don’t see how/why that would be considered sexy by a grown man.

    Well, there’s your problem, right there.

    “Conservative” men are not grown men. They’re arrested 13 year olds.

  111. 111

    @Violet: Those heels that make her feet look like hooves.

  112. 112

    @Corner Stone: She looked much better after the makeover from McCain’s team. Now her appearance is just sad, looks like she is trying too hard.

  113. 113
    RaflW says:

    @PaulW:

    raises 1.1 million dollars for campaigning funds… only dishes out 50,000

    Spare me any deep analysis as to the reported upswing in high-net-worth Repubs directing their own funds. They’re on to Palin and Rove too.

    I don’t think they’ll do that much better at spending and campaigning, but I think they are tired of directly subsidizing Palin. They’ll leave that to the rubes who giver he fifty or even five bucks at a time.

  114. 114
    lol says:

    @Woodrowfan:

    Greenwald and Hamsher ran a PAC called Accountability Now in 2010 that supposedly would recruit/fund primary challengers against insufficiently pure Democrats and had a similar margin of grift. Nearly all the money went to FDL to buy lists and salaries for Greenwald, Hamsher and other emoprog bloggers. IIRC, they raised six figures and only gave a couple grand to one random candidate.

    There are a few other leftie PACs that do this too but AFAIK, none of them match the scale that’s routine on the right.

  115. 115
    opiejeanne says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Those shoes don’t fit correctly, or if they do it’s a lousy design. Look at where the heel of her foot rests on the shoe. She shouldn’t have that much space behind her heel.

  116. 116
    WaterGirl says:

    @opiejeanne: I think this might be one of them:

    http://www.amazon.com/Last-Gra.....038;sr=1-2

    Edit: in case PaulW doesn’t come back.

  117. 117
    Cervantes says:

    @lol:

    Greenwald and Hamsher ran a PAC called Accountability Now in 2010 that supposedly would recruit/fund primary challengers against insufficiently pure Democrats and had a similar margin of grift. Nearly all the money went to FDL to buy lists and salaries for Greenwald, Hamsher and other emoprog bloggers. IIRC, they raised six figures and only gave a couple grand to one random candidate.

    Was it ever their stated purpose to donate money to political candidates?

  118. 118
    Jeffro says:

    @Botsplainer: My friends are going to wonder where I picked up “bunny boilers” from…

  119. 119

    @opiejeanne: The whole outfit is a mess. Did she raid her younger daughter’s closet? Pink shirt and a skirt with polka dots?

  120. 120
    g says:

    @Corner Stone: Yeah, her facial tics and grimaces and weird expressions were…disturbing. It reminded me of tardive dyskenia, a side effect of medication. If you didn’t listen, you missed what I thought was the creepiest part of her speech. This came when she introduced her version of “Green Eggs and Ham” by saying she had revamped it as a bedtime story for her little boy Trigg. She said what a “lucky little fella!” he was to have this bile-soaked screed read to him, and she said it in a tone of such simmering rage I was creeped out. Her tone of voice was what you’d hear from an exasperated babysitter just before she shoves the kid’s face into a bowl of oatmeal.

    Just by itself, the fact that she presented her version of GE&H as a “bedtime story” was creepy enough; her tone of voice was truly disturbing. It was NOT the tone any mother would use to refer to a child she loves.

  121. 121
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Cervantes:

    Was it ever their stated purpose to donate money to political candidates?

    That’s what PACs are for. If they didn’t mean to donate money to political candidates, ballot measures, or legislation, they should have set it up as something else.

  122. 122

    @g: The only Palin speech I have watched was the one she at RNC and that sure as hell was creepy. The media denizens slobbering over it was even creepier. National elections are a game to them.

  123. 123
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @lol: Maybe it was all in the spirit of offering a big prize to someone who proved he could do something impossible. “We _would_ give people this money, but none of them truly deserved it, harrumph.”

  124. 124
    Cervantes says:

    @Mnemosyne: You can’t even read your own reference?

    Plus I notice you did not answer the question.

  125. 125
    Corner Stone says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Pink shirt and a skirt with polka dots?

    Tell uzz more…

  126. 126
    Corner Stone says:

    @g: I’m pretty happy with not hearing it, but appreciate the analysis.

  127. 127
    MomSense says:

    @g:

    It reminded me of tardive dyskenia, a side effect of medication.

    I thought it looked like a combination of meanness and botox.

  128. 128
    Chris says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    “Conservative” men are not grown men. They’re arrested 13 year olds.

    I’ve said this before, but… to me, the liberalism was basically an organic part of growing up.

    Libertarianism/conservatism (I repeat myself) makes great sense when you’re a teenager, especially a middle class suburban one, at a stage in life when your biggest concern is getting Mom and Dad off your backs. Of course everything would be better if The Man would just leave you alone. Of course your country (more exactly, your in-group) is the bestest, coolest, Exceptionalest thing since sliced bread – you’re in it, after all. Of course diplomats and academics and other boring people who just want to sit around and talk instead of doing things are boring and wrong. And if you’re at the stage when you’re still craving acceptance rather than thinking things through, it’s easy to see why you’d see things like “you’re being racist” as a mortal insult rather than a reason to stop and wonder if you are, in fact, being racist.

    Growing up means discovering and accepting that the world doesn’t revolve around you. It means realizing that you don’t know everything and can’t do everything and that the world you take for granted exists because all of us chip into it and to some extent sacrifice our own convenience for each other’s. It means coming to terms with the fact that there are other people in the world with their own needs and opinions and that yours aren’t necessarily more important than theirs.

    If you go your whole life without making that leap of understanding, well, congratulations: you’re a conservative.

  129. 129
    WaterGirl says:

    @Chris: Most excellent!

  130. 130
    Cervantes says:

    @Chris:

    Growing up means discovering and accepting that the world doesn’t revolve around you. It means realizing that you don’t know everything and can’t do everything and that the world you take for granted exists because all of us chip into it and to some extent sacrifice our own convenience for each other’s. It means coming to terms with the fact that there are other people in the world with their own needs and opinions and that yours aren’t necessarily more important than theirs.

    If you go your whole life without making that leap of understanding, well, congratulations: you’re a conservative.

    Are there people (or political groups) who do not make “that leap of understanding” whom you would not call conservative?

  131. 131
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Cervantes:

    Plus I notice you did not answer the question.

    You can read their FEC report for 2010, which was the last time they took in a reasonably large amount of money. The “disbursements” column is not pretty, especially when you get to this line:

    TOTAL FEDERAL ELECTION ACTIVITY $0

    But, hey, if you want to defend people who collected political contributions and then spent it all on “consultants” and raising more contributions rather than actual political activity, be my guest.

  132. 132
    Cervantes says:

    @Mnemosyne: Hmm … you still have not answered the question. Maybe, as you said elsewhere, you need more sleep.

    But, hey, if you want to defend people who collected political contributions and then spent it all on “consultants” and raising more contributions rather than actual political activity, be my guest.

    You perceive that I am defending someone here? You’re right: you definitely need more sleep.

  133. 133
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Cervantes:

    Hmm … you still have not answered the question.

    Perhaps you could use this new internet tool called Google to find that out. I hear it’s all the rage these days. Or perhaps you don’t want to know, since you seem a little emotionally invested in showing that Greenwald et al weren’t raising political contributions when they listed their PAC on Act Blue.

  134. 134
    lol says:

    @Cervantes:

    It was to recruit and support primary candidates. I would’ve expected to have seen in-kind donations to candidates if they weren’t going to give money directly. But maybe they “recruited” lots of candidates or something and stopped helping once they entered the race? Nope.

    The only recruitment they took credit for was Bill Halter… and that’s pretty laughable since it was organized labor that recruited him.

  135. 135
    ed says:

    “Apes don’t read Dr. Seuss!”

    “Yes they do; they just don’t understand it.”

  136. 136

    @Corner Stone: See the photo that Violet linked.

  137. 137
    Corner Stone says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: I did, and I discussed it previously. I’m curious why your reaction to a pink blouse and a skirt that rests below the knees is so disparaging?

  138. 138

    […] Go ahead, I double dog dare you. […]

  139. 139
    Cervantes says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Perhaps you could use this new internet tool called Google to find that out. I hear it’s all the rage these days. Or perhaps you don’t want to know, since you seem a little emotionally invested in showing that Greenwald et al weren’t raising political contributions when they listed their PAC on Act Blue.

    This is stupid, even by your “standards.”

    I asked someone else a simple, one-line question. If you weren’t going to address it, why bother to respond at all?

    Also, I corrected your gratuitous nonsense about the John Birch Society. (You’re quite welcome.)

  140. 140
    Violet says:

    @Corner Stone: Can’t speak for schrodinger’s cat, but for me the two pieces are mismatched. The pink blouse has a textured design that clashes with the polka dot skirt. It’s way too busy, especially when paired with the shoes. The blouse itself is more of a “fun” blouse–with the texture, the neckline, the shoestring tie at the neckline and the sleeve style. It doesn’t work with the more traditional cut of the skirt.

    It kind of looks like she doesn’t know how to dress herself. Fun pink blouse that would work best paired with jeans for a casual night out. Traditional style skirt with a pattern that would work best with a simple blouse/top for a slightly snazzed up business-y look. Snakeskin platform strappy high heels with metal studs that would work best for a night out at a club. It’s just a bizarre combination and certainly not something a 49-year old woman who wants to be taken seriously would wear. If she wants to be a reality TV star, then it’ll definitely get her some attention.

  141. 141
    PaulW says:

    @WaterGirl:

    Edit: in case PaulW doesn’t come back.

    In case I don’t come back from what? I’ve been too busy setting up my own SuperPAC. To hell with trying to get people to buy Last of the Grapefruit Wars or the Strangely Funny and Mardi Gras Murder anthologies, I’m gonna set up an “ultra-awesome-conservative SupraPAC” titled Modern Emergency of Money Exclusively for More Elections (ME-ME-ME) to convince people to help fund special election campaigns for any “candidate” running for the Presidency in 2016 that will support “ultra-conservative causes”… very ultra-conservative things like embezzling, rash investments on the stock markets, buying up questionable commodities, and so on. I figure asking for $250 per Tea Partier would go a long way towards shoring up my SupraPac into a hefty self-serving scam uh a life-long dream of American righteousness.

  142. 142
    Cervantes says:

    @lol:

    It was to recruit and support primary candidates.

    Yes, “recruit, coordinate, and support primary challenges” is what I think they said.

    I would’ve expected to have seen in-kind donations to candidates if they weren’t going to give money directly. But maybe they “recruited” lots of candidates or something and stopped helping once they entered the race? Nope.

    You may know that these questions were discussed here on Balloon Juice. Here is part of what Greenwald said at the time:

    Contrary to the myth under which you are inexcusably and slothfully laboring, the purpose of Accountability Now — which I founded right on my blog — is not and never was to collect money to give them to candidates. If we had given the money we raised to candidates, that would be a total violation of the organization’s purpose. […]

    The purpose of Accountability Now is and always was two-fold, and it’s exactly what we stated clearly from the start: (a) to create a network of organizational donors and supporters, to form an infrastructure that will enable progressive candidates to mount a credible challenge against incumbents, and (b) to recruit credible primary challengers by identifying vulnerable incumbents, finding good challengers, and then persuading them to run. That’s why the expenses are not contributions to political candidates. That has nothing to do with the group’s function.

    That was Greenwald’s response to something posted here. Are you familiar with it? Have you taken it into account?

    The only recruitment they took credit for was Bill Halter… and that’s pretty laughable since it was organized labor that recruited him.

    Laughable?

    Perhaps you’re not familiar with Halter’s campaign. Here’s a report from 2009, before he decided to run:

    Halter mulls Senate race
    Arkansas Times

    [Lt. Gov. Bill Halter] met recently with liberal bloggers and political activists about a primary challenge to U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln. The gathering was held at the D.C. home of blogger Jane Hamsher, whose group Accountability Now encourages primary challenges. Reached by phone, Hamsher confirmed the gathering, but declined further comment. It’s unclear how serious Halter is about the challenge, but the fact that he’s meeting with labor officials and bloggers to discuss the possibility is significant. Halter didn’t tell the assembled that he would make the race, but he made it clear he was seriously considering it, the sources said.

    Further, Salon implied (in 2010) that Hamsher had helped coordinate union support for Halter. I have no idea to what extent that’s true, but it does not seem unlikely. The Washington Post said that “Halter had heavy support from unions and national liberal groups.” The New York Times spoke of “the labor unions and national liberal groups” that recruited” Halter. And The Hill identified two of these national liberal groups: Move On and Accountability Now.

    Still laughable?

  143. 143
    Ian says:

    @boatboy_srq:
    IIRC, when the Lorax movie came out right wingers were complaining it was environmental brainwash for kids.

  144. 144
    WaterGirl says:

    @PaulW: Sorry, “in case PaulW doesn’t come back” = in case you didn’t come back to the thread to see her question. (Hey, don’t yell at me, I was trying to help by telling her the name of your book!)

    And yes, sadly, grift pays better than hard work.

  145. 145
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Cervantes:

    Also, I corrected your gratuitous nonsense about the John Birch Society. (You’re quite welcome.)

    You do realize that you’re now defending Richard Nixon’s actions against Helen Gahagan Douglas in 1950, right? Otherwise, I’m not sure what your point was in sneering at the book about the Douglas/Nixon congressional race and implying that it was full of lies.

  146. 146
    opiejeanne says:

    @WaterGirl: thanks!

  147. 147
    Cervantes says:

    @Mnemosyne: Get some sleep. You really do need it. (Well, there are other possible explanations for what you just wrote — but I’m feeling charitable.)

  148. 148
    opiejeanne says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: I really hate those fussy sleeves, which do not belong with that style of skirt at all. I think a different shirt in pink could work, but red would have been my choice if I were dressing her.

    And Not Those Shoes. They scream “I’ve found some dollars but I have no sense”.

  149. 149
    lol says:

    @Cervantes:

    It’s laughable because I know the people that actually recruited Halter and I know people that actually worked on his campaign. Yes, Halter courted the Netroots and got a lot of money from them. No, Greenwald and Hamsher did not recruit him.

    That was Greenwald’s response to something posted here. Are you familiar with it? Have you taken it into account?

    Yes, I saw it at the time and Greenwald’s “response” was his typical style of not contesting any statements but contending the author was wrong because shut up that’s why Obamabot. Accountability Nowt uses the same bullshit vagueness that every scam PAC speaks. There’s one in Washington state that uses the exact same language about all the work they’re doing recruiting “real progressives”. In reality, all the money goes to salaries for the guy who runs it (and his family members) and the only verifiable thing they do is ask for more money. Of course they don’t donate directly to candidates or do any work for them. There might be accountability for expenditures that way.

    You know what an organization that *actually* does this work looks like? It looks like EMILY’s List. It looks like Progressive Majority. It looks like the New Organizing Institute. It looks like the National Committee for an Effective Congress. They run ads. They conduct trainings. They provide staff support for campaigns. They provide data and targeting. It’s a tremendous amount of work done by people paid to do this sort of thing for a living.

    And most importantly, they’ve stayed around and continued to do the hard work of organizing for year after year, election after election, decade after decade.

    Accountability Now closed up shop and vanished months before the primary season in 2010 was even over with nothing to show for it. Which of the two types of organizations I’ve described do you think that most resembles?

  150. 150
    opiejeanne says:

    @PaulW: If you followed her back to my comment you’d see that I was trying to buy a book from you. Which I did, thanks to her.

  151. 151
    opiejeanne says:

    @Mnemosyne: I went to HS with Helen’s great nephew. He will never forgive what they did to her.

  152. 152
    Corner Stone says:

    @opiejeanne: The advice may be wasted on you, but I would suggest being cautious on any item Mnemosyne mentions here.
    It’s never actually accurate to reality.

  153. 153
    Cervantes says:

    @lol: Thanks for the response.

    It’s laughable because I know the people that actually recruited Halter and I know people that actually worked on his campaign. Yes, Halter courted the Netroots and got a lot of money from them. No, Greenwald and Hamsher did not recruit him.

    As I showed you, there are folks (not Hamsher or Greenwald) who give Accountability Now some of the credit. You may be completely right; they may be completely wrong.

    That was Greenwald’s response to something posted here. Are you familiar with it? Have you taken it into account?

    Yes, I saw it at the time and Greenwald’s “response” was his typical style of not contesting any statements but contending the author was wrong because shut up that’s why Obamabot.

    In that response, Greenwald did not contest any statements?

    (Your synopsis of his “typical style” does not sound familiar, either, but it has been a long time since I read him regularly so I’ll let that go.)

    You know what an organization that *actually* does this work looks like? It looks like EMILY’s List. It looks like Progressive Majority. It looks like the New Organizing Institute. It looks like the National Committee for an Effective Congress. They run ads. They conduct trainings. They provide staff support for campaigns. They provide data and targeting. It’s a tremendous amount of work done by people paid to do this sort of thing for a living.

    Sure. I would not compare Accountability Now to these groups. They differ in several ways, including scale and, apparently, sustainability.

    Accountability Now closed up shop and vanished months before the primary season in 2010 was even over.

    Yes, that was disappointing. Do you know if any of their donors/contributors complained?

  154. 154
    opiejeanne says:

    @Corner Stone: should I not believe my friend who told me about this? I mean, this was his great aunt.

  155. 155
    opiejeanne says:

    @Corner Stone: also, was that intended as an insult to me? Why?

  156. 156
    mclaren says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Can someone explain why Palin is still considered relevant?

    Palin is the latest in the long GOP series of hatemongers who stand on the sidelines and scream for death, torture, impoverishment of the poor, more brutality, more bigotry, more pointless cruelty to the weak, more adoration of bullies, even more fervent efforts to ennoble depravity and demented greed.

    Ronald Reagan was for 30 years what Sarah Palin is now: the Great Hater beloved by an infantilized and bestial mob of GOP morlocks.

    Before Ronald Reagan, there was Senator Joseph McCarthy.

    The legacy of hate stretches back, empowering the GOP with ever-unsated rage and blood-red frenzy.

    We need to remember this is the face of the enemy. These are the people who look at fire and see an abomination to be wiped out, these are people who look at the end of slavery and see a blasphemy to be reversed, these are the people who look at the wheel and see nothing but an instrument of torture.

  157. 157
    Cervantes says:

    @opiejeanne:

    @Corner Stone: should I not believe my friend who told me about this? I mean, this was his great aunt.

    How do you get from Corner Stone saying “I would suggest being cautious on any item Mnemosyne mentions here” to advice that you should not believe your friend? I’m not seeing a connection. Are you?

    As for:

    also, was that intended as an insult to me?

    The answer to your question is an obvious no.

    How is that nephew of HGD doing these days? (When you say “He will never forgive what they did to her,” that suggests you are still in touch.)

  158. 158
    Cervantes says:

    @mclaren: Palin is pretty bad on the merits but I’d say she’s not (yet) in the same league as Reagan or McCarthy (or even Gingrich or Santorum). In terms of current effectiveness, would you say she’s about on par with Ted Cruz? Someone else? And do you think she can or will become more powerful than she is now?

  159. 159
    PaulW says:

    @opiejeanne:

    Oh, thank you! if you like it or hate it, either way please let me know. You can still contribute to my ME-ME-ME SupraPAC while you’re at it (evil wolfish grin).

  160. 160
    PaulW says:

    @WaterGirl:

    I saw the follow-up to the follow-up to the ME-ME-ME SupraPAC gag (yes, sadly, it is a gag, I don’t have the financial know-how to set up a scam). Thank you for the referral!

  161. 161
    opiejeanne says:

    @Cervantes:
    Did you follow the comments back to where I first responded to Mnemosyne? If you didn’t bother, that’s the only way your question makes sense. The answer is yes, since that was my only response to all of the stuff Mnemosyne had posted, that is the only connection I see. She mentioned what Nixon did to Helen Gaghagen, I responded that her great nephew will never forgive, etc, and then Corner Stone posts a somewhat condescending warning that it would be wasted on me but that I should not believe what Mnemosyne posts.

    And yes, I’ve known Helen Gaghagen’s great nephew since 1964. He’s doing well, lives and runs an online business in a resort town in Southern California. I’ll tell him you asked.
    I talk to him online pretty regularly and we are better friends now than we were 50 years ago. He only mentioned Helen wrt Nixon’s treatment of her a couple of years ago; before that I had not considered that they were closely related.

    You seem to be defending Corner Stone, but why? Did you miss the condescension in that warning or do you not consider condescension insulting? I don’t know Corner Stone, don’t think I’ve ever engaged him in the past 5 years I’ve posted here, and I haven’t been a very active poster; mostly I read.

  162. 162
    opiejeanne says:

    @PaulW: hahaha! No, I don’t give money to politics. I give time to politics.

    I will let you know if I like it. It’s next on my reading list on the Kindle. I finished a mystery in the wee hours this morning so this evening I’ll be opening yours.

    I just read Frankensteinbeck’s latest book before that, a YA story about children of super power heroes and villains waiting to get their own powers. 13-year-olds. It was fun, but maybe the main characters were a bit too realistically whiny and giggly.

  163. 163
    Cervantes says:

    @opiejeanne:

    Did you follow the comments back to where I first responded to Mnemosyne? If you didn’t bother, that’s the only way your question makes sense. The answer is yes, since that was my only response to all of the stuff Mnemosyne had posted, that is the only connection I see.

    Yes, I followed your comments back. I’ll leave it at that.

    She mentioned what Nixon did to Helen Gaghagen, I responded that her great nephew will never forgive, etc, and then Corner Stone posts a somewhat condescending warning that it would be wasted on me but that I should not believe what Mnemosyne posts.

    No, this is not what happened. Where you came in is when you responded to this comment. The comment is an inane non sequitur (which is why Corner Stone advised you not to take it seriously). Your response to the inanity was indirect and fine: no one has a problem with it.

    And yes, I’ve known Helen Gaghagen’s great nephew since 1964. He’s doing well, lives and runs an online business in a resort town in Southern California. I’ll tell him you asked. I talk to him online pretty regularly and we are better friends now than we were 50 years ago. He only mentioned Helen wrt Nixon’s treatment of her a couple of years ago; before that I had not considered that they were closely related.

    That’s excellent. I’m glad you’re in touch. For what it’s worth, you can give him my regards and say that I remember Helen and Melvyn.

    You seem to be defending Corner Stone, but why? Did you miss the condescension in that warning or do you not consider condescension insulting? I don’t know Corner Stone, don’t think I’ve ever engaged him in the past 5 years I’ve posted here, and I haven’t been a very active poster; mostly I read.

    Corner Stone is good people. Simple as that.

    And no, I saw no condescension there. Why would anyone bother to condescend to you?

  164. 164
    opiejeanne says:

    @Cervantes: nice use of condescension.

    I have no quarrel with whether he is good people, but it is good to sometimes entertain the idea that those we like and or admire might possibly be in error.

  165. 165
    Cervantes says:

    @opiejeanne:

    nice use of condescension.

    Glad you liked it!

    (I have my moments.)

    I have no quarrel with whether he is good people, but it is good to sometimes entertain the idea that those we like and or admire might possibly be in error.

    Of course.

  166. 166
    Corner Stone says:

    @opiejeanne: I’m not sure why you would consider my muted advice to be condescension?
    Others here have seen how Mnemosyne builds narratives out of misrepresentation and sometimes whole cloth. Why wouldn’t I have considered you were already included in the group of people who understand Mnemosyne is not to be taken at her word(s) ?
    How you came to the conclusion I was doubting your comment, or the reference to someone you knew personally, I honestly have no idea. Seeing as I quite simply stated that Mnemosyne does not play with the facts, and is notorious for same, not sure why that inures to a character reference about you in any way?

    ETA – and to my initial comment – Mnemosyne was attempting to make the statement that someone had begun “defending” Nixon’s treatment of someone else. That’s kind of the nut to what I was addressing. Not disputing something bad may have happened.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Go ahead, I double dog dare you. […]

Comments are closed.