History of Right Wing Hate Speech? (Video)

I have not fact-checked the information in the first video, but it does match with what I remember hearing when I was a child when adults in my community talked about John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963 as well as the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968. People perceived southern conservatives of that period to be violently angry and that white segregationists' speech reflected that rage.

It is the same climate in which the 1963 church bombing occurred, the murder of Medgar Evers occurred, and later the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, although his convicted assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, deserves the same label that the press has given Jared Lee Loughner, mentally unstable. Both are considered to be disturbed and obsessed with a certain ideology or philosophy; Sirhan's was driven in part by anti-Zionism and Lougher's seems to be fascinated by nihilism.

The video below is of Mike Papantonio talking to Ed Shultz and is posted also at Ring of Fire. The two talk about the history of hate speech within the right wing movement. While I think Papantonio's logic is sound and his facts appear to be credible, I do not think everyone on the right condones or uses hate speech. I do, however, think that too many on the right who do not condone or use hate speech remain silent when their counterparts do which is why I gladly posted the video of two conservatives chiding another conservative for using racist speech.

I think this kind of talk show, Ring of Fire, is a left counterpunch to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn-Beck's type of talk shows, and they can fill a whole and serve a worthwhile purpose. However, I will have to spend some time doing fact checks before I yay or nay the style, substance, and format of Ring of Fire.



A friend of mine shared this video and others with me, and I think I'll pass them on to my rhetoric professor. In our next class she will be discussing how the term "rhetoric" has been used in the days since the Arizona Shootings. Since once definition of rhetoric is speech used to persuade, I look forward to hearing my classmates' and professor's thoughts about the recent debates on civil political rhetoric.

Until my friend passed along to me this and the video at the end of this post that has the same left wing pundits talking about Sarah Palin, I had not paid attention to Ring of Fire (Not much time to listen to pundits on either side lately); however, I do recall hearing that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., was involved with a liberal radio show a while back. According to the show's Facebook page:

Ring of Fire is a weekly radio program hosted by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Mike Papantonio, and Sam Seder. Kennedy Jr., Papantonio, and Seder hold court over the news of the week and offer the real behind-the-scene details on those stories.

In the first video Papantonio is making the case that President John F. Kennedy was shot in a climate of hate speech in which people called him a communist and a "n*gg*r lover" (Papantonio doesn't use that last term, but I recall the charge), and so Papantonio argues that this is the same kind rhetoric we've seen rise again on the right (He's alluding to Obama being called a socialist and terrorist, I think, and some right wing pundits' accuasations that health care reform is reparations for black people, etc.).

He says that billionaires such as H. L. Hunt and Fred Koch funded campaigns against JFK, which included flooding Dallas, Texas, with anti-Kennedy posters:

The poster says that the president is wanted for treason against the United States. Now, understand, hundreds of thousands of these posters were distributed all over Dallas, all over Texas. They said he was a communist, that he subverted the Constitution, that he supported racial communist riots in America because of his civil rights stand. They said he was anti-Christian and promoted anti-Christian rulings by the Warren Court, that he was a despicable liar. Now, if you think about the history of what was happening then, you had H.L. Hunt and Fred Koch, who helped finance and organize, people don't realize this, they don't understand that Fred Koch helped organize and finance the John Birch Society, the same crowd that he had out in the streets in Texas weeks before John F. Kennedy shows up in Dallas. They're flying Confederate flags, they're screaming that Kennedy should be shot because he loved African-Americans, only they were much more ignorant and hostile in the way they talked about African-Americans, you can imagine.

Unlike someone at NewsBusters suggests, however, Papantonio is not saying people in Dallas were behind Kennedy's assassination nor that Sarah Palin pushed Jared Lee Loughner to shoot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others in Arizona on January 8.

Papantonio is saying that these kinds of acts of violence correlate with periods in which hate speech flourishes. (With so much violence in society today, he should probably do more to lay the groundwork for this point, which is difficult to do in oral arguments on radio where people often miss nuance and in a time when so many don't know history and so don't recognize references. However, there is evidence that periods of unchecked hate speech against specific ethnic or religious groups precede genocide.)

The writer at NewsBusters, a right wing website, also says that Papantonio is perpetuating the myth that Dallas schoolchildren applauded when it was announced Kennedy had been shot. If he is correct and if the references the writer cites are not simply more attempts by southerners to rewrite history, then Papantonio should correct his mistake if he wants to show that he is above the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs on the other side.

In this next video, Papantonio calls Palin "a political Frankenstein," meaning she's a creation of the political powers that brought her to the mainstream and now they can't control her. With his statement, please keep in mind that someone had to resign in March 2008 from Obama's campaign for calling Hillary Clinton "a monster;" so, Papantonio should probably be careful of going over the top with his own diction.

He also says that women find Palin "creepy," and he believes that the more people know about Palin, the less they like her, which is why, he thinks, her reality show was not renewed; the people who want her to run could see it was too much exposure, he supposes. I'm not sure that's the case, however.

But I do think that some of the people on the right who initially promoted Palin are sorry that they did so.

Please consider that the video segment below was recorded before Palin's "blood libel" speech, which has been severely criticized because in it she defends herself and seems more concerned about what people have been saying about her rhetorical strategies than she is about the shooting victims. She's been accused of playing the victim.

Shultz,by the way, says that without Palin's incendiary rhetoric, she's a nobody.



I'm trying to determine how I feel about this kind of passionate, sometimes virulent speech on the left (I am sometimes equally passionate). If we're going to call for civility, then what does that mean? Does that mean those on the left, if they have their facts straight, can't shout back at the right? What do we mean when we say we want a civil discussion of issues? And why does the craziness of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have so many more supporters and higehr ratings than something like "Ring of Fire"?

Related: Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama: An Issue of Rhetorical Ethos

Apology to Sarah Palin for Blood Libel from Her Fellow Americans (Video Commentary)

Considering how much I've already written about Sarah Palin's use of rhetoric, even posting video of her infamous "blood libel" speech with transcript at my personal website, I hesitated before posting this video that I found at New Black Man (H/T GC). It's "An Apology to Sarah Palin for the Blood Libel from Her Fellow Americans" by Anthony Kelley, a composer and professor, and it's a calm piece of satire.

More than 'Blood Libel': Another Reason We Cringed at Palin

I did not want to overload my blog with another lengthy post about Sarah Palin. However, the controversy over her use of the term "blood libel' in her "America's Enduring Strength Speech" and reports that death threats against her are increasing spurred me to write something anyway.

Instead of publishing my thoughts here, I have published them at my personal website, WritingJunkie.net: "More than 'Blood Libel' Phrase: the Other Reason People Cringed at Sarah Palin's Arizona Shootings Speech." I end that piece, which includes the transcript of Palin's message, with these words:

I pray that no physical harm comes to Palin for the sake of her children and peace in this nation. However, I also hope that Palin will pay attention to the hate mail and phone calls she may be getting as a result of this controversy and begin to realize that nasty words, even figurative language suggesting calls to violence delivered in an environment charged with animosity and other negative emotions, can indeed lead to violent acts. After all, picking up a telephone or sending an email to threaten a person's life is also a form of violent action surpassing a passing thought. Will she connect these dots?

Some conservatives have been critical of Palin's word choice in the speech; however, far more have been supportive. Even Jews for Sarah Palin and Alan Dershowitz still defend her. Read more.

Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama: An Issue of Rhetorical Ethos

With the tragedy in Arizona and challenges to vitriolic rhetoric, Obama's opponents are pulling up the relatively few examples of him speaking forcefully and Palin's defenders are pulling out an old 2004 bullseye graphic from a nonprofit Democratic action group, but the American debate challenging politicians, the media, pundits, and bloggers to dial back the ugly tone of our political rhetoric should not become a "you did it too" discussion. There's too much at stake.

It's true that political speeches have long used militaristic rhetoric. I say this up front because in evaluating the current debate about violent rhetoric and the Arizona shootings, I've already seen people who think that in order to silence discussions about dialing back the nastiness, they simply need to point out the use of violent figures of speech on both sides.

I'll even present this olive branch and admit that some progressives have also used "targeting" language when writing about or speaking of conservatives. For example, the Democratic Leadership Council used a graphic in 2004 that had bullseye images on a map about gaining back control from Republicans. I learned of this graphic because a member at BlogHer.com, Adrienne Royer, took issue with the graphic six years later when she wrote in 2010 about Sarah Palin's "Take Back the 20" poster.

The DLC is a group with which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords herself has had some association, but we know that Giffords does not embrace the loose ownership of guns nor use incendiary rhetoric habitually. We can also learn that the Democratic Leadership Council (which is not the DNC as some misreport) is considered to be centrist, not extremist. For instance, they support the rights of Americans to own guns, but promote enforcement of ownership criteria and safety, the kind of laws that would have kept the mentally-ill Arizona shooter from having a gun in the first place. (As you will see later in this post, that's part of my point. We decide meaning and intent based on context and what we know of a person's beliefs, practices, and character. Conversations about toning down rhetoric must not become a tit-for-tat style debate.)


In addition, I am not one saying that one person's rhetoric or even one group's rhetoric pushed Jared Lee Loughner to shoot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, federal judge John Roll, little Christina-Taylor Green, and others Saturday in Tucson, Arizona. Giffords is recovering, but Loughner allegedly killed six and wounded 14 people.

I don't blame a particular public figure or group because making such an argument without compelling evidence such as discovering Loughner built shrines to the Tea Party or Palin in his home is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, an argument that connects dots carelessly. We might feel in our bones that certain kinds of rhetoric directly influenced the shooter's rampage, but we can't know exactly how the shooter's disturbed mind worked to drive him to that grocery store because he's not talking and who can trust what he may say should he speak?

Nevertheless, as someone whose graduate focus is rhetoric, I must disagree with the use of another fallacy that's arisen as we try to make sense of tragedy, the tu quoque ad hominem argument that is being used to quash a much-needed discussion about hate speech and inflammatory rhetoric in America. As one scholar defines it, the tu quoque ad hominem logical fallacy is the "so's your mom" fallacy; others call it the "you too" appeal:

Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually "You shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.

In the current situation, with Sarah Palin in particular falling under the microscope, any argument about speech must naturally look at people. It's people who speak and so they and their words are the evidence. However, as we look at people in the context of how their rhetoric creates a positive or negative political climate that persuades others to take action, we should focus on patterns, tendencies to use violent rhetoric and to speak irresponsibly (twisting facts to create hate, etc.) to inflame others. It's the pattern of speaking provocatively with little concern about facts or consequence that's at issue here.

After seeing CNN's interview with Libertarian radio talk show host Neal Boortz, who by the way was immediately cocky with Don Lemon (Boortz was flattered that CNN follows him on Twitter and made a point to say that he does not follow CNN), I decided I needed to write something again about the tit-for-tat argument style of some conservatives.



At the Wall Street Journal, I guess they've discovered that so many people are looking for dirty rhetoric from President Barack Obama that the WSJ has annotated a post about a 2008 Obama comment he delivered in Pennsylvania. In the speech, Obama said said, "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun."

I remember that. Even then the right was attempting to throw onto then presidential candidate Obama the criticism the left and moderates had thrown at Republicans, which is that they promote and create climates of fear. It's a common tactic with them to resort to this kind of arguing or rock throwing when they want to deflect attention from complaints against the kinds of harmful speech they tolerate or at least try to convince the general public that there's nothing wrong with shades of hate speech. (Clinton seized on it as an opportunity to criticize Obama as well, thinking he had put his foot in his mouth with white, small town voters and that would help her win.)

But when we look at Palin, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh (Limbaugh, btw, has a page up at his website now called examples of Obama hate speech)--when we look at these kinds of public speakers, we observe a pattern, a history, and a practice of either an inflaming to entertain strategy or a willingness to yell fire at a paranoid electorate. So our concern is not about occasional slips into edgier rhetoric or using militaristic figures of speech sometimes when getting out the vote. It's about the rhetorical term ethos, the appeal of their persuasion through their character to the pathos--the beliefs and emotions--of their identified audience.

Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh in particular know that their audiences identify with people who hide behind the Second Amendment to defend keeping guns and a desire to use them and also a fear that they will become oppressed under a socialist takeover. The latter is a fear that these pundits/speakers have exploited.

President Barack Obama, however, has a reputation for compromise, for not being extremist, and for being cool-headed. He doesn't court the NRA crowd and speak of the joys of gun-ownership, killing moose or turning back the clock in America through an active militia. He has not been reasonably associated with people who today talk in terms of overthrowing the government by violent means.

In fact, it was in Pennsylvania that he got into trouble with his "clinging to guns and religion" statement about certain kinds of people who oppose him or feared him taking office. The U.K. Guardian back then called the statement "an uncharacteristic moment of loose language" for Obama. "Uncharacteristic."

He's not been the one dividing America with rhetoric about "pro-America areas of the country" versus, I suppose, "anti-America" sections, as Palin has done. He's not like Beck, who worked people up into thinking Van Jones is a die-hard communist to be McCarthyed out of his position with the White House. Nor has Obama ever suggested that any group of Americans had engaged in a plot to hurt America the way Rush Limbaugh said African-Americans have been in a plot.

In fact, the president had to be pushed to use stronger language during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill last summer as some critics called him "too nice" and "not passionate enough." See the "whose ass to kick" video. Remember, Gen. Colin Powell even endorsed Obama for office because the man seems level-headed.

So, people know--I think that includes people on the right, too--they know when Obama's speaking figuratively and using a popular cliché to make his point. Too many on the right are being disingenuous when they seize on his words that are uncharacteristically fiery because unlike Sarah Palin, Obama does not have his people create websites like Take Back the 20 with gun sights over states and a list of opponents' names (a website she's removed from the Net since the Arizona massacre), and unlike Obama's opponents, he does not attract the kinds of supporters who proudly sport guns in public spaces. He and his family are the ones whose lives have been considered most endangered by the kinds of hateful rhetoric that started with his run for office. But the potential bullets claimed others.

This post is not intended to be a defense of Barack Obama. I am using the president's rhetoric and considering his ethos because some on the right are using his rhetoric as an example to defend themselves while not addressing the issue of ethos.

What I'm saying is that people are looking at people like Palin, who thinks she can win the Oval Office from Barack Obama in 2012, and the commonly-accepted talk of conservative pundits such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and even Bill O'Reilly, because these speakers have a reputation for wild speech. When we consider their histories of using inflammatory rhetoric to get attention, we by nature consider their ethos--their character--and that is part of why we cringe at the words coming out of their mouths. We think they use fighting words craftily with ill intent.

Added link, 11/14/11: At Pam's Coffee Conversations, Pamela Lyn has written the poignant post, "When Should I Believe You? - an ode to political discourse in America."

Remember Sarah Palin's Coin Conspiracy Suggestions? It and Other Crazy Talk Deserve Examination

As I said in my first post on the Arizona shootings when I posited that the shooter means "conscious dreamer" not "conscience dreamer"—I see no evidence that directly links Sarah Palin to shooter Jared Lee Loughner. Still, I add that we should be able to look at Palin's rhetoric and decide whether she is responsible and wise or callous and unfit for national public office.

I think that Palin has contributed to the climate of fear and anger with some incendiary rhetoric, and I've been saying so since she appeared on the national scene with John McCain in 2008. But people far more qualified than I am have evaluated her rhetoric as well. Anil Dash discussed Palin's use of language in his 2008 essay "What Sarah Palin is Saying." So, even though the media and bloggers are scrutinizing in particular one Palin message that features gun sights as the nation grieves over Saturday's Arizona tragedy, Palin's Take Back the 20 cross hairs campaign is only one loop on her rhetorical roller coaster.

I also have suggested that while Loughner may not have been influenced directly by the former Alaskan governor, his obsession with currency not being backed by gold seems a reflection of Glenn Beck's buy-gold punditry (God, Gold & Guns) and some of Palin's nonsense implying that the Obama administration, in a fit of "socialist" manipulation, is changing our money. I recall that back in 2009 even her Fox News buddies fact-checked her "coin conspiracy" wackery and found it wanting.

But also like Palin and Beck, Loughner worried about the United States Constitution and Americans lack of knowledge about it, a repeated concern of the Tea Party movement:

In December he (Loughner) posted on YouTube a statement reading, “The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America’s Constitution.”

Two days before the shooting, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who Loughner shot in the head and the FBI says he targeted for assassination, read the First Amendment during a public reading of the document in the House, a ritual promoted by conservatives entering Congress who feel Americans are ignorant of the Constitution.

However, as I said in my first piece, both sides, the right and the left, are trying to associate Loughner with their opponents and make it stick. He is a registered Independent though and can't be pinned to one party or ideology. Furthermore, he is an unstable man, mixed up about what he believes in any way that would make sense to a rational personal.

Does an acknowledgment that Loughner seems insane and concession that no one can be blamed in a concrete way for the shooting other than him mean that we should not take time to reflect on the vitriolic, political rhetoric that's taken hold of the nation? Does it mean we ignore that Arizona seemed excessively crazy itself last year with xenophobic pitches and racist throes flooding rallies and the air waves?

No, we must observe; we must examine.

While Palin may be crying foul in email to Glenn Beck over people pointing the finger at her, she's fed her share of conspiracy theories beginning with her "Barack Obama pals around with terrorists" statements during the 2008 presidential campaign. Remember that.

And yet, I agree with Barbara Walters, who said Palin hasn't said nice things, but people shouldn't blame Palin for this incident. Well, I agree in part. We can blame Palin for her attempts to bolster the kinds of conspiracy theories that feed the madness of people like Jared Lee Loughner. She should choose her words considerately, get her facts straight, and craft her rhetoric more carefully. Her supporters need to face that.

In a clip near the end of this post from The View on ABC, the panel and its moderator, Walters, focuses on Palin's infamous cross hairs poster. As reported at Business Insider:

Elisabeth Hasselbeck then showed the NY Post cover from the very morning of the shooting -- which happened to depict Peyton Manning with his head in cross hairs. "Are they then to blame if, god forbid, anything were to happen to Peyton Manning?"

Sherry Shepherd then made an excellent point that if after that front page someone had shot Manning, America would be asking the same questions about the front page as they are asking about Palin's cross hairs poster: was it a factor in the shooting?

I think it was also Sherry, or it could have been Whoopi Goldberg, who said people are focused on Palin because she may run for president. GOP strategist John Wevaver had a similar take, saying Palin is held to a different standard:

"You can't put the actions of this insane person on her doorstep or anyone's doorstep," he said in Palin's defense. But, he added, "having said that, there's a difference between how people judge the conduct of a blogger and a political leader or someone who may want to run for president of the United States."

People are wondering whether her decision to publish and promote the Take Back the 20 cross hairs graphic shows she's not fit to lead the nation.



Remember not too long ago, Whoopi and Joy Behar were in the spotlight because they walked off the set of The View in October 2010, saying that some of conservative pundit Bill O'Reilly's language was irresponsible. Walters disapproved of her colleagues decision to storm off. An angry Walters said to the audience that Whoopi and Behar should not have left the stage, but then she turned to O'Reilly and told him that his language that painted all Muslims as culpable for the 9/11 attack was "extremist."

Now, I'm wondering will Bill in the future blame all young white males for the shooting in Arizona?

One of the saddest pieces of the Arizona shooting story is the death of Christina Taylor Greene, the 9-year-old who died and who was also born on the day of the 9/11 tragedy. Her brief life is something to think about, perhaps with her death we will see how fragile we are, how we destroy the future with ill-chosen words, loose gun laws, and reducing services to help the mentally ill. We humans are not as smart as we think.

Tea Party Leader Attacks My Church, the UMC

Just when I thought some Tea Party leaders could sink no lower, I learn that one of its most prominent leaders, according to the Huffington Post, is calling for the United Methodist Church to be disbanded. I take this personally since I grew up in the UMC.

My grandfather and great-grandfather were UMC ministers and many of my family members are still on its rolls. In fact, I've been thinking about returning to the UMC. I guess my roots are calling me.

I drifted away thinking I needed a denomination that embraced a pentecostal tradition more and had clearly defined guidelines for living. Ironically, many such churches ostracize members that don't get with their political agenda to force a conservative Christian doctrine onto the nation, and I don't think that's what the Apostles advocated.

HuffPo reports that Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation and someone who claims to be a former member of the UMC, calls the denomination the "religious arm of socialism" and "the first Church of Karl Marx."

TPM Muckraker says that after seeing a sign at a UMC building in Washington D.C. for the Dream Act (The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, which failed to pass in Congress), Phillips wrote at his blog that he said "I have a DREAM. That is, no more United Methodist Church."

It seems that he divined from this sign that the UMC is "pro-illegal immigration," but he also maligns the UMC because it supports health care reform and helping the poor. He probably holds similar animosities toward the Christians who support the views of Sojourner's Magazine. Apparently in Phillips's mind, Jesus of Nazareth would have objected to helping the poor or being willing to pay more in taxes so your fellow citizens could have access to health care. (Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly also imagines that Jesus believed in locking people out rather than loving people in.) So, Phillips wants "no more" UMC.

Naturally, Phillips tosses around the word "freedom" a lot as though only he knows what the word means. I continue to be amazed at how often people who proclaim themselves "patriots" and "freedom-loving Americans" seek to diminish the rights of others. Speaking of the Methodist church, Phillips writes:

"They want amnesty, they want "economic justice", they opposed "global climate change" (earth to the Methodists, man isn't doing it), fighting global poverty (here is another hint, most poverty is caused by a lack of freedom and lack of a free enterprise system). Not shockingly, the Methodists side with the Islamists against Israel, and of course oppose America in Iraq."

So, there you go. Another Tea Party leader is showing his true colors as anti-freedom of religion. So much for the Constitution of the United States of America they claim to love so much. Perhaps this tendency to want to control other people's religious beliefs is why so many Tea Party members love Sarah "Dominion Theologist" Palin.

You can read Phillips's blog to verify his statements; however, you will have to subscribe. Can you stomach that?

At LoveRadically, writing about Phillips's attack on the UMC after he supposedly saw a Dream Act sign , the blogger says:

I am not going engage Mr.Phillips on his ignorance of the United Methodist Church or his blatant over-generalization of all the members of the UMC as people who hate American. As an aside, I dare you sir to step into my church on Sunday morning and tell our veterans they hate America. Nor will I debate Mr. Phillips's stance on the DREAM Act or any other legislation. I will only ask Mr. Phillips why HE hates America and democracy? I only make that assumption because Mr. Phillips seems to dislike the way a democratic government works, that is debating and discussing the issues of the day instead of condemning an entire denomination because of one sign outside one building.

Yep. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Phillips knows the history of the church and its founders, Charles and John Wesley, and thinks that he, Phillips, a Tea Party leader, somehow has greater wisdom.

From what I've read of his rhetoric elsewhere, the man misunderstands "separation of church and state." He denounces the UMC for sending emails to its members about church leaders' positions on political issues. So, he doesn't seem to get that separation of church and state does not mean people of faith lose freedom of speech.

Earth to Mr. Phillips: The evangelical Christian right has been politically active for a long time! Maybe you should read some history books (not those from Texas, however). Also, again, see Sarah Palin.

Bristol vs. Brandy: Man Goes Against SWAT He's So Mad. Zombie Apocalypse Next?

I am surprised that Bristol Palin's beaten Brandy, who I thought was quite good even on the first show of this season's Dancing With the Stars. However, I've only seen DWTS that one time this year. (I prefer So You Think You Can Dance) Nevertheless, I can't escape DWTS news. Everywhere I turn, it seems, I'm hearing about possible Tea Party influence on Bristol Palin getting this far.

Really, who cares? If Bristol Palin winning a reality TV dance show is proof that America loves her mama, Sarah Palin, enough to vote the former governor into the White House, then we've have bigger problems. The zombie apocalypse is near.

And if it's near, then it's starting in Wisconsin. ABC reports that a man there was so enraged after Monday night's show that he shot his TV and had an "all-night stand-off" with SWAT? Steve Cowan's wife told police that he was drinking Monday night and that "he has bipolar disorder," reports a Chicago TV station, but he also has strong opinions about dance, apparently:

Cowan's wife says her husband felt that Palin was on the show because of her mother's political pull - and had no talent as a dancer.

What the hell is going on out there, America?



And do read Emily Zanotti (not a progressive) aka American Princess's funny commentary on Bristol's reign, "A Dancing With the Stars Pulbic Service Political Announcement." I had to add it.

Photo Credit: The NY Daily News, which reports that Brandy calls Bristol's advancing to the finals, "an outrage."

Sarah Palin's Irresponsible Use of Language

From the Christian Science Monitor:

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka charged that if Republican political star Sarah Palin is not more careful in her choice of words, the political movement she has helped to create will be linked with 1950s McCarthyism

I listened to what Trumka had to say and I kept thinking of Anil Dash's commentary about how Palin uses language that he wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign (See "What is Sarah Palin Saying?").

I also wrote about Palin's distortions of fact and how she used language back then. I wrote about it more than once.

And let's not forget conservative attempts to change the meaning of the word "feminist" and misrepresenting the beliefs of Susan B. Anthony. (See "Dear Sarah Palin: Did you know Susan B. Anthony liked to pal around with socialists?") I've been wondering why do conservatives want to appropriate the word "feminist" so badly?

Which Politicians Score More Dollars from the Oil Industry?

I recorded Lee Zurik's report on Fox News 8 in New Orleans last night about which politicians receive campaign contributions from oil companies. Zurik's pretty thorough, but his report didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

These oil money "investigative reports" are popping up everywhere. For instance, Poynter just ran a piece called "Looking into Which Politicians Get the Most Money From BP, Other Oil Companies." It cites OpenSecrets, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, as its source of information. I was aware of its database as well. It's good that some analysts and news outlets aren't letting the misrepresentation of campaign contributions from oil data slide.

However, some bloggers and mainstream media outlets have been haphazardly reporting oil industry and BP contributions to politicians, and that's been a pet peeve of mine during this oil spill crisis. Some people repeat misinformation such as the accusation Sarah Palin made that Barack Obama is in deep with BP without considering sources and checking facts.

And I mean, come on, Sarah Palin as credible! The woman thinks she understands foreign policy because she can see Russia from her window, and she blames environmentalists for the oil spill.

But I guess we should expect that some Republicans would take advantage of this crisis and try to pull a few fast ones like calling out President Barack Obama on the money he's received from BP while ignoring their own people are flush in oil money by comparison. Furthermore, it's not surprising some fair-weather progressives have swallowed the misinformation as though the news didn't come from the Drill, Baby, Drill! camp.

The conservative talking point repeated, which also appears in the Fox News 8 piece online, is that Obama received more money from BP in election cycle 2008 than any other candidate, $71,051. Some folks take that soundbite and run, and even the Fox local news report has as its video graphic a picture of Obama with $71,051, a way of editorializing through presentation.

You have to read the whole article and watch the video to learn Republicans get more money overall and that Obama's money didn't come from the corporation itself but BP employees. However, Zurik also tells viewers that Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter's treasure chest includes a pool of black gold, $242,000. That's fat for a senator, and anyone who has been paying attention as this oil spill story has grown could tell Vitter appears to be in oil's pocket.

Responding to Palin's misrepresentation, OpenSecrets, the Center of Responsive Politics, which is the same organization that Palin used as a reference when she tried to smear Obama, had the following to say at its blog:

Of the $71,051 Obama raised from BP-related sources, all of it came from individual employees, as Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees. During the entire 2008 election cycle, the company's PAC and employees favored Republicans in their giving at a ratio of about 3-1. And the oil and gas industry as a whole gave Palin and her running mate John McCain $2.4 million -- more than double the $901,000 Obama collected from the industry overall. BP itself is currently ranked as #106 on the Center's "Heavy Hitter" list of companies and organizations that spend the most on federal campaign contributions.

Writing at Time on the game, "BP And Obama: Playing Internet Gotcha With Campaign Finance Numbers," Mark Scherer analyzes a Politico story that went wild with the Obama-BP story, and he says:

It is true that according to this online database (OpenSecrets again) Obama received slightly more money from BP's PAC and employees since 1990 than anyone else. But there is a major a reason for that, which the story fails to mention: People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests--and just about every other interest. ...

*MediaMatters said in May that Obama received no PAC money from BP during his run for the presidency.

Scherer continues, discussing how the numbers are skewed and mispresented, and then says:

That's one way of slicing the numbers. Another would be to say that in the last 20 years, BP has given 71 percent of its money to Republicans, and 29 percent to Democrats.

After many of my posts about the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, I link to "Flashback: Jindal Tells How He Grew Up with Oil Industry and that Threat to Environment is Balanced in Louisiana." MSM has been awfully cushy with the governor lately, ignoring his past.

In addition, I share info from the WSJ fact check on Sarah Palin misrepresentations. The Wall Street Journal reports, "According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Republicans receive far more campaign money from the oil and gas industry than do Democrats.." I do this because I know people don't pay attention and check facts.

In my home state, Louisiana, almost everybody's in bed with oil, Republican and Democratic politicians alike. Yes, Democratic Senators Melancon and Landrieu, we see you. But nationally, Republicans are the darlings of the oil industry.

So, if Republicans want to assert that politicians should be pristine in taking money from oil corporations, then they should start with their own people. I'll gladly get behind any push to stop all politicians from accepting oil donations.

In the interest of the fair relay of information, BP's contribution to the Obama campaign represents less than .0001 % of his the total he collected of nearly $750 million. In terms of influence, that's approaching infinitesimal.

The percentage he collected from the oil and gas industry in general during his presidential campaign represents slightly more than than .001 %. Compare that to John McCain receiving $2.4 million from oil and gas, more than double the amount Obama received, but collecting less than half as much in campaign contributions overall. If money buys access, then who was giving more access to oil in terms of ratios?

Let's remember that Obama broke the mold in collecting money, a substantial portion of it from ordinary people giving less than $200 each. Nevertheless, I wish none of the candidates took money from large corporations, Obama included, and if we want to get on this president's case for approving more offshore drilling earlier this year, fine. But any progressive jumping on the Obama-BP conspiracy train is drinking conservative fringe spiked punch. They need to quit.

Dear Sarah Palin: Did You Know Susan B. Anthony Liked to Pal Around with Socialists?

I just read a provocatively funny post at the PA Editors Blog: "Republicans forgot that Susan B. Anthony was a socialist" by Joe Wenland. He makes a point that I can agree with in spirit but not in fact. A more accurate statement is that Susan B. Anthony had an affinity for socialist ideals, and that Eugene V. Debs and other avowed socialists admired her.

So, that's right, Sarah Palin. Susan B. Anthony was known to pal around with socialists. And oh, dear! You spoke at The Susan B. Anthony List Celebration of Life, did you not? Your buddy Rush Limbaugh even praised your "mama grizzlies" folksiness.

I wonder what Susan B. Anthony, who never married and had no children, would have thought of bearing children no matter what. How would she feel about denying women the right to reproductive choice? Perhaps we can get an idea of what she may have said from her own writing about visiting the homes of poor mothers who had large families in Europe:

I went to the home of another tenant, and there again was one room, and sitting around a pile of smoking-hot potatoes on the cold, wet ground—not a board or even a flag-stone for a floor—were six ragged, dirty children. Not a knife, fork, spoon or platter was to be seen. The man was out working for a farmer, his wife said, and the evidences were that "God" was about to add a No. 7 to her flock. What a dreadful creature their God must be to keep sending hungry mouths while he withholds the bread to fill them!...

That quote comes from the biography The Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony, Volume 2, pg. 574. It's from a letter Anthony wrote to her friend Rachel. Furthermore, Anthony was not supportive when she learned that Rachel Foster (later Avery) had adopted a child with her sister Julia. She thought the child would be a distraction from the suffragist cause.

The biographer, Ida Husted Harper, was a journalist and close friend of Anthony.

It's no secret that Republican operatives like to flip context when launching political messages. Consider how some Republicans glibly declare "Martin Luther King, Jr., was a Republican!" as though King's life and speeches reflect conservative philosophies. So, is it any surprise they would attempt to mislead people to believe Susan B. Anthony would have been pro-life? Is it possible that they chose to ignore facts about Anthony's life, her political leanings, and criticism of the suffragette published during her lifetime?

It is a mistake to call Miss Anthony a reformer, or the movement in which she is engaged a reform; she is a revolutionist, aiming at nothing less than the breaking up of the very foundations of society, and the overthrow of every social institution organized for the protection of the sanctity of the altar, the family circle and the legitimacy of our offspring, recognizing no religion but self-worship, no God but human reason, no motive to human action but lust. Many, undoubtedly, will object that we state the case too strongly; but if they will dispassionately examine the facts and compare them with the character of the leaders and the inevitable tendency of their teachings, they must be convinced that the apparently innocent measure of woman suffrage as a remedy for woman's wrongs in over-crowded populations, is but a pretext or entering wedge by which to open Pandora's box and let loose upon society a pestilential brood to destroy all that is pure and beautiful in human nature, and all that has been achieved by organized associations in religion, morality and refinement; that the whole plan is coarse, sensual and agrarian, the worst phase of French infidelity and communism....

She did not directly and positively broach the licentious social theories which she is known to entertain, because she well knew that they would shock the sensibilities of her audience, but confined her discourse to the one subject of woman suffrage as a means to attain equality of competitive labor. This portion of her lecture we have not time to discuss. Our sole purpose 402 now is to enter our protest against the inculcation of doctrines which we believe are calculated to degrade and debauch society by demolishing the dividing lines between virtue and vice. It is true that Miss Anthony did not openly advocate "free love" and a disregard of the sanctity of the marriage relation, but she did worse—under the guise of defending women against manifest wrongs, she attempts to instil into their minds an utter disregard for all that is right and conservative in the present order of society. (From the Territorial Despatch of Seattle, edited by Beriah Brown as quoted by Harper in Volume 1 of her Anthony biography)

Harper then writes in the biography: "Apparently Mr. Brown did not approve of woman suffrage. According to his own statement Miss Anthony confined her entire discourse to the one point of competitive labor. The editorial was founded wholly upon his own depraved imagination.."

Brown was a supporter of civil rights for African-Americans, but apparently put his foot down on uppity women folk. He was also mayor of Seattle, Washington, for a year in 1878.

At risk of giving ammunition to conservatives who would lash out at the PA Editor's Blog and despite being pro-choice myself, I must poke its "... Susan B. Anthony was a socialist" post. Yeah, the Republicans should be honest and acknowledge that Anthony embraced socialist ideals and most likely would not be on the side of anti-abortion politics, and therefore, they should not have created anything in her name to honor that cause. The Susan B. Anthony List champions the pro-life cause in the cloak of women's equality.

Undoubtedly, had the conservatives behind the project done their research, they may have gone with a different name for that list, which is perhaps a knock off of Emily's list. Nevertheless, the fact is Susan B. Anthony was not technically a socialist.

The Worker, (New York) : Although Miss Anthony was not a Socialist, we Socialists cannot refrain from paying her honor, for she was a brave woman who honestly devoted her life to a great cause—only an integral part of our Socialist program, indeed, but still great even by itself. (from the appendix of The Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony: including public addresses, her own papers ... by Harper, published 1908)

I'm on an accuracy in political warfare kick lately, which I expressed in my post about the tug-o-war over Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and her sexual orientation, whether or not she is gay. When scoring political points, we should honor facts and avoid giving opponents a handy stick with which to beat us.

Sarah Palin's At It Again With Dominion Theology

With her hairdo in this photo, Sarah looks like exactly the woman to take this country back to the 50s and 60s in this photo. There's nothing wrong with Palin's hair, but it does make me think of an Anita Bryant/Samantha Stevens kind of mash-up, slightly updated with a touch of 70s.


That's a screen shot from the Huffington Post story about her saying on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News Show that "the recent backlash against the National Day of Prayer is proof that

some people are trying to enact a "fundamental transformation of America" and to "revisit and rewrite history" in order to shift the Christian nation away from its spiritual roots.

Palins's advice: "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments.

"What in hell scares people about talking about America's foundation of faith?" Palin continued. "It is that world view that involves some people being afraid of being able to discuss our foundation, being able to discuss God in the public square, that's the only thing I can attribute it to." (HuffPo has video)

O.K. Now jump back five years. Remember the stories during the campaign about a pastor annointing Palin. I keep telling people, pay attention to those who advocate Dominion Theology.

Despite concerted efforts, disturbing evidence pointing towards the likely nature of Sarah Palin's religious beliefs continues to emerge. Yesterday "scrubbed" footage, from a 2005 "anointing" of then-Alaska gubernatorial contender Sarah Palin, resurfaced on the website of the net-based alternative news service The Irregular Times. The footage showed Kenyan minister Thomas Muthee not only praying over and blessing Sarah Palin, to advance her bid for the Alaska governorship and protect Palin from a "spirit of witchcraft", but, prior to the blessing, Muthee gave a seven to eight minute speech in which he called on believing Christians to "infiltrate" a number of key areas of secular society including Banking and finance, schools and education, media, politics and government. (article)

While not a constantly devout Christian, whatever that means to you, I was once active in the Evangelical church culture that promoted a Christian right agenda for America, and I studied the Bible. So, I speak from knowledge when I say that I strongly disagree with Dominion Theology from a biblical perspective.

I don't believe that Jesus told Christians to take over the physical world and revolutionize worldly governments to follow his teachings. I keep going back to 1 Peter 4:15, which tells us not be meddlers/busybodies, meddling in the lives of others. Not to mention that Paul, a Roman citizen, spent no time at all telling Christians they were to take over Rome and make Rome conform to Christian beliefs. The biggest error in Dominion Theology is this teaching that America is a Christian nation, almost a second Israel selected by God.

It's one thing to work to persuade people to turn their hearts over to Jesus the Christ, and quite another to force people to turn their laws over to the followers of Jesus the Christ. I don't know which Bible they've read, but the one I read says nothing about the world being all tidy, adhering to Christian laws, just in time for Jesus's second coming.

Seems to me, if Sarah's actually read her Bible's New Testament, she should expect the world to not clamor to live by anything resembling biblical principles or law, not waste time whining that people don't "love the Lord" the way she does. And now for the scarier connection: Hitler also thought he was doing God's will.

Yes, I know there are people who think we should not ever use Nazi Germany to make a case. I disagree. If it walks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi, invoke a history lesson.

And no, I don't think protesting and asking America to live up to the ideals of its constitution for the sake of social justice, as did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is the same thing as trying to force America to subvert its constitution and reshape it this nation into a theocracy.

Sarah Palin's Canadian Health Care Adventures

This sounded crazy to me. At first I thought it was from The Onion, but Sam Stein reports at the Huffington Post that Sarah Palin has jumped the Canadian Border before to get health care. More Palin hypocrisy?

Stein pulls his information from the Globe and Mail. I had to go read it for myself, but to make it clear, it sounds as though skipping over to Canada for health care is something the former governor did in her youth, perhaps when she was under her parents' charge.

The vocal opponent of health-care reform in the U.S. steered largely clear of the topic except to reveal a tidbit about her life growing up not far from Whitehorse.

“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada,” she said. “And I think now, isn't that ironic?” (Globe and Mail)

The Globe and Mail also had this information:

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll suggested that only 37 per cent of Americans had a favourable impression of Ms. Palin; of those who identified themselves as conservatives, fewer than half said she was qualified to serve as president.

I can't wait until 2011 when she runs for the presidency and tells us her visit to Canada proves she has foreign affairs experience the same way seeing Russia from her house does. Oh, wait! She's already claimed that.

The photo of Palin shows her with cheat notes on her hand. The irony there is that the camera caught her palm cheat sheet during her speech to a Tea Party group in which she made fun of President Barack Obama using a teleprompter. Defending herself later, she said God also wrote on his hand.

I think she wants to be seen as smart, and so she tried to avoid referring to index cards like normal people. Perhaps she wants to keep alive the rumor that she's brainy with a great memory. And yet, she forgot that if you hold your hands out, people can see your palms.

Sarah Palin vs. Beck, Limbaugh? Not Likely

When I wrote around midday Thursday, February 4, that Sarah Palin's Rahm Emanuel drama reveals her insincerity and ignorance, I only included a history of colorful and bad form in Republican officials. As cynical as I can be at times, it never occurred to me that conservative pundits and some Republican politicians or political staff have used the word "retarded" in far uglier ways than Emanuel did.

Then I saw these videos posted online from Countdown with Keith Olbermann after my original post.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

OLBERMANN: Sarah Palin will stand up to anyone to defend her baby, except anyone who might help her politically. After calling for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to be fired for using a phrase, behind closed doors, which she calls heartbreaking to special needs kids and their families, she is refusing to call for the same measures against Republicans who use that word or variations on it, even on national radio or TV.

This weekend, she will be campaigning for a man whose top campaign aide has used that word repeatedly directly to journalists. But first, tonight‘s new developments; after the Plum Line Blog called Palin‘s attention to the fact that Orly Taitz Limbaugh too used the word, glorified in it, while referring to the Emanuel story, Palin‘s spokeswoman issued a statement that did not call for Limbaugh to be fired or even apologize. And if you read it carefully, does not in fact criticize Limbaugh at all. Quote, “Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful.”

And yet never has the integrity to stand up for her son and say that Limbaugh, just like Emanuel, actually did this. Republican number two who can say the word, Texas campaign consultant Dave Carney, whose repeated use of this word, even directly to reporters, called into question yesterday, has not led Palin to call for his resignation from the campaign of Texas Governor Rick Perry, for whom Palin, herself, will be campaigning this weekend.

And Republican number three who can use the word, not once like Emanuel, not privately like Emanuel, but repeatedly on national television, on national radio, laughing about it and it‘s perfectly fine with Sarah Palin—that would be Fox News host Glenn Beck, whose uses of the word were literally too numerous for us to present in their entirety in our time allotted tonight, but to whom Ms. Palin gave a lengthy interview just last month, after a year of Beckian commentary that included the following. (Olbermann's transcript)

Even I didn't think Palin was that stupid and that big of a hypocrite to demand Emanuel be fired for using the "R" word while her cohorts did the same. A definitely lapse of healthy cynicism about politicians on my part there because had I looked I would have found this recording at Media Matters, posted January 9, 2009, more than a year ago, of Glenn Beck "laughing, to Mary Lynn Rajskub: "What do the paintings of the retarded children go for?"

Naturally, Rush Limbaugh is slapping her down for succumbing political correctness. He defends his use of the word "retarded" by saying he was only quoting Rahm Emanuel. But as I said earlier, I think this latest grumbling from Republicans/conservatives over speech such as demands that Sen. Harry Reid step down for using the term "Negro dialect" is not a genuine push for political correctness but a mocking of political correctness in the tit for tat way they approach this world.

In the middle of this craziness though, I think Feministe's asking the right questions, what has Palin done for disability advocacy? Meanwhile, Rahm Emmanuel is taking his apology to Special Olympics further by hosting a panel on disability issues. Somebody at Wonkette thinks this is a misuse of his time.

• Palin denounces Limbaugh. Will Glenn Beck Be Next? (Headline's a little misleading. She didn't uses Limbaugh's name and only her spokesperson made comment.)


• Why is Sarah Palin afraid of Rush Limbaugh?

Palin Shows Insincerity, Ignorance Again with Rahm Emanuel Drama

No one ever commented on my old presidential humor story at Examiner, but I see traffic flowing here from that article to my post on President Obama's joke regarding Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Mother's Day, and the use of the word "motherf*cker." Hits have been increasing to that post in the last 24 hours, and I know who I can credit with that, Sarah Palin and her minions.

Palin is riling people up over Emanuel's saying "retarded," a word that's only been under fire in the last few years if that long. And she's added Fox-like-faux outrage via her Facebook page over Emanuel's use of profanity on a regular basis.

The 2008 vice presidential candidate put up a Facebook post on Monday evening arguing that Emanuel's offending slur (in which he said that liberal groups thinking of running health care-related ads against Democratic lawmakers were "F---ing retarded") was no less the equivalent of using the "N-word." (HuffPo)

Doesn't this heifer have anything better to do with her time? Emanuel has since offered an apology, the panacea of our politically correct fakeotopia.

I understand why people are upset about slurs against the mentally challenged, but who is Palin to talk about anyone's use of offensive language after the racist-charged rhetoric she used during the presidential campaign? And please, you all have got to know all this calling for this one's resignation and that one's resignation over words is the zenith of insincerity among conservatives.

The grandstanding is nothing more than Republicans mocking past calls from progressives and liberals over the years who have called for the resignation of people who use hate language with full vitriolic intent that gets dismissed by conservatives as "just joking." What inauthentic but cunning bastards they are!

Anyway, this current burst of Palin drama caused me to recall colorful humor and out-and-out bad form from Republican Party members I've heard over the years, which does not include the Magic Negro Christmas gift of 2008.

In this video, beginning around 32:45 on the counter, you'll see President George Bush telling jokes at the 2002 White House Correspondents' Dinner, encouraging antics from Ozzie Osbourne, who was in attendance, saying facetiously that his mother, Barbara Bush, loves Osbourne's stuff, and after showing a slide show entitled Inside the White House, he implies that Dick Cheney, shown watching him through a peep hole, looks like he's masturbating. How do I know about this? I actually watched it live.



Oh, but remember when Bush was caught with an open mic at the G8 Summit in 2006. Reporters called it "Bush uncensored."


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Next, here's vintage George Bush giving the finger or as he calls it "the one finger victory salute."



Still, the Palin bots would like us to believe that ugly language and profanities on Capital Hill were unheard of before Emanuel became Chief of Staff. Come on, even if you'd never read one thing about Dick Cheney, including the shooting incident, would you be shocked if someone told you he cusses, even drops "f" bombs? Do you remember this 2004 story, "Cheney says he feels better after cursing Leahy"?

In an interview with Fox News on Friday, Cheney said he was "forcefully" expressing his unhappiness with the conduct of the Democratic senator from Vermont -- who Cheney said had publicly questioned his integrity, and then wanted to be friendly when he saw him in person.

Sources who related the incident to CNN said the vice president had told Leahy either "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself."

Cheney would not confirm using the word.

"That's not the kind of language I usually use," the vice president said in the interview during a campaign stop in Michigan.

When asked if he had cursed at Leahy, Cheney answered, "Probably."

"Do you have any regrets?," Neil Cavuto asked.

"No. I said it," the vice president responded. (CNN archives)

And then there was the Karl Rove rap about animal cruelty: MC Rove tears the heads off of critters.



Going back farther when profanity was supposedly only for folks in the gutters of slums, how about all the expletives on Richard M. Nixon's tapes?

Thus during a televised campaign debate with John F. Kennedy on Oct. 13, 1960, Richard M. Nixon sanctimoniously criticized the salty language of Harry S. Truman. Now the transcripts of Nixon's Watergate tapes publicly reveal what many White House insiders already knew—that Nixon uses plenty of X-rated expletives. Those who have heard him speak in private say that the swearwords he commonly uses are both blasphemous and obscene; they include four-letter expletives that are salacious and scatological. (Read more: Time Magazine 1974)

Yes, we got rid of Nixon, but not for his cursing in the Oval Office. Wait! I think I see a similarity here between Nixon's character and Palin's. Both go for the sanctimonious shtick.

Finally, if Palin is so offended by foul language, why did she leap at a chance to run with John McCain, a well-known hothead? I can't make up my mind whether with Palin's calls for Emanuel to resign/be fired that she's showing us again the depth of her insincerity or the height of her ignorance.

Sarah Palin Didn't Know Anything, Says Republican Strategist

Republican strategist Steve Schmidt tells Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes that Sarah Palin knew nothing. Apparently they spent a lot of time trying to cram her head with information about foreign affairs such as how Korea split into North and South. Comments in the following video indicate that in order to win, McCain's camp was willing to put someone in the VP chair who was not ready for the job, in fact, a potential risk for the country.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Do McCain staffers regret choosing Sarah Palin? Mark Halperin of Time and John Heilemann of New York Magazine say after talking to Republican staffers, they sense a lot of rationalization going on. But there is guilt, they think, perhaps an understanding from the staffers that they did something irresponsible.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

I've never had a good feeling about how GOP staffers have, after using Palin in an effort to win, were so eager to throw her on the funeral pyre with John McCain's failed bid for the presidency despite my never, ever liking the woman. I still take issue with rewriting history and making it sound as though they'd never heard of her until Rick Davis found her on the Internet. But what bugs me most is that they were willing to shove her down America's throat and call anyone who questioned her very questionable credentials and intelligence "sexist."

They played mind games with Americans and gambled the future. Can you say "lacks integrity"?

And now Palin is where she's always belonged. After playing cutesy with Oprah like she wasn't thinking that much about having her own TV show, she's joined Fox News as a contributor. What with her conspiracy theories about our coins and money, think of all the fun she'll have with Glenn Beck.