Krauthammer exposes MSM obsession with Sarah Palin

Great catch via NewsBusters. During another ‘Sarah Palin segment’ on PBS Inside Washington, Krauthammer quickly condemns this liberal obsession with Sarah Palin:

I should explain again as I do every week to the viewers as a kind of a viewer’s guide that this is the weekly Sarah Palin segment in which the impression is given that the whole of conservatism in America is encapsulated in this one glorious woman.



And he’s exactly right. It’s why Chris Christie was asked if he supported Sarah Palin and it’s why every Republican is asked if they support Sarah Palin. It’s a liberal obsession, not necessarily with her, but of destroying her.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

25 thoughts on “Krauthammer exposes MSM obsession with Sarah Palin

  1. The bigger obsession is in destroying the conservative movement. And when targeting Palin, the left is employing Alinsky’s rule #13:

    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

    As Bush faded away, they targeted Palin. Then O’Donnell. Now back to Palin. If it’s not one of those two, they’ll go to Boehner. Or anybody else who is powerful and/or effective.

    What frustrates me most about this phenomenon is that Republicans and “conservatives” often get sucked into the emotion of the lynch mob, going after their own.

  2. The left sure is obsessed with Palin. Sarah believes in conservative family values, can shoot a gun, and will drill for oil. And she’s attractive. A libtards nightmare!

  3. If Gandhi lived in another time and was subjected to the apoplectic ravings of the liberals, there is not doubt that even he would be radioactive within a week. They made Palin radioactive, in the same way they did with incumbent Bush. Once they make the object of their hatred toxic, all their energies funnel into this one deranged Alinskyite bogey, and nothing, absolutely nothing will stop such a runaway locomotive.

    I’m glad Krauthammer resists, but even he had difficulty being heard above the roaring lunacy of his hosts at PBS. The power of this Alinskyite tactic comes from the widespread acceptance of the lie even among conservatives. The Alinskyites get their enemy to agree with them. They know that fear is a powerful motivator and paralyzer. After all no one wants to be labeled. I am glad Krauthammer did not take the bait… however the clip was too short to see what transpired later and whether he was shouted down before he was able to speak any more “truth to idiots”.

    In an aside… despite the fact that Palin has mentioned North Korea as an enemy on numerous occasions previously, she gets hammered for a normal slip… but Obama never gets hammered for his authentic ignorance and stupidity. But maybe I am too harsh on Obama… it is true, he probably did visit almost ALL of the “57 States”… of the OIC, that is. And it is simple Obama logic that Austria is populated by Austrians who speak… ahem… Austrian.

    1. Bush was a very helpful hand in making himself toxic, as well. Let’s not try to give him the same treatment every single pope gets, a post-term push for canonization.

      The fact that Obama is worse doesn’t post facto make Bush a good President.

      1. Daniel, Post facto canonization was not part of my posting, nor did I make any judgment about Bush, good or bad. There is plenty to dislike about his tenure in the WH… to which I will heartily agree in discussions with my liberal friends. Writhing in great pain under the stinkeye of my liberal detractors… yet I will agree with them about Bush in spite of the fact that Dems on the Hill supported the Iraq war early in 2003 (including Hilary) only to turn tail six months later and demonize and undermine the effort fourteen ways to Sunday until the surge.

        My main point centered around the fact that once the Alinskyite tactic is deployed against their enemy, be it Dan Quayle, or the Religious Right (the big bogey of the 80’s and 90’s) or Bush or the Tea Party or Palin, the progressive left just can’t help themselves in indulging their hate obsession.

        Conservatives must come to grip with this tactic and grow steel in their spines and turn the tables by calling them out, like Krauthammer did in this clip. Difficult to do when there is one conservative against 5 chompin’-at-the-bit progressives just ready to tear your head off.

        So in short this is not about eulogizing a lapsed, big spending, conservative, it’s about bracing to counter a vile left-wing cultural Marxist tactic.

        1. I singled you out for that Bush sainthood bit too much. That shouldn’t have been directed so much at you as conservatives in general who for some reason today can’t get enough of the “I MISS BUSH” or “Miss me yet?” nonsense. This is especially confusing to me considering many of their grievances against Obama are expansions of Bush policies.

          I don’t like people who shut down the debate like Alinsky’s disciples do, so anything that counters them or shows them their doctrines have been disarmed and rendered useless is a good thing in my book. Just keep in mind that if GOP politicians grow the spine necessary to not buckle in the face of Alinsky, they will also probably no longer listen to anyone else either.

          A GOP politician with backbone is Lindsay Graham, George Bush, Mike “change the constitution to reflect the word of the living god” Huckabee, Jim “gays shouldnt be in classrooms” DeMint, or the earmark defending Inhofe.

          1. Interesting point you got there about a GOP politician with backbone… ouch!
            Graham, sheesh an obvious RINO, even if he is hawkish on the military. I wouldn’t be too hard on DeMint, however. He’s facing incredible pressure from his fellow gop’ers.

            DeMint also said that sexually active unwed women teachers should be banned from the classroom. I cringe when someone goes this far. A social conservative can get the point across by simply saying that gay behaviour trumpeted as a social good is not something to which society should aspire. Then they can list the ills of a program of strident normalizing of homosexuality if they want, but disenfranchising every practitioner of sin is a “fail”.

            But, backbone is a plus… someone like Allen West comes to mind, yet he is still untested as a congressman. You have people with backbone like Rove, but that’s the establishment gop’er… not authentic backbone.

            Daniel, you said, “Just keep in mind that if GOP politicians grow the spine necessary to not buckle in the face of Alinsky, they will also probably no longer listen to anyone else either.”

            I don’t believe this follows at all. Principled people can display backbone, obdurate people are purely stubborn and never listen. There is a distinction in my humble opinion.

            1. A distinction without a difference if we’re talking about policy matters which for all but the utilitarian have been elevated to the level of belief, beyond opinions.We want GOPers to be principled when their principles are in line with ours, but would you say Lindsay Graham is principled or stubborn on amnesty? Many people say he’s deluded and stubborn, people who agree with him feel it’s a principled stand against “reactionary” elements of his political party and/or constituency.If there is a difference, it is only one of perspective, in my opinion at least.

              1. Graham flips as quickly as a pancake on a hot grille. He was going along with them dems, then it came out that he was gay. He flipped positions, and then flipped back. Spineless definitely comes to mind.

    2. The far left is getting louder and more vile in their attacks on conservatives for one reason, they are losing and they know it is only going to get worse for them.

    3. The far left is getting louder and more vile in their attacks on conservatives for one reason, they are losing and they know it is only going to get worse for them.

  4. Chris Cristie is not all that; and a bag of chips. He’s EARLY in his first term as gov. in NJ. He’s held a teacher’s union accountable; and American conservatives are supposed to feint, ooh, and ahhh. Sorry there chubby; we’ve already been duped by a naive, junior politician Messiah. Get SIGNIFICANT legislative and executive accomplishments in your liberal bastion state of NJ; then, we’ll take your ruminations and political musings more seriously…

      1. I didn’t realize that this forum was exempt from open conservative discourse; my sincerest apologies…

  5. I don’t think Palin will run for presidency. What human being on God’s green Earth is going to bother putting up with the media bullcr*p where a simple misspoken word becomes a major international news event?

    Whether we as conservatives like it or not, Sarah has been terminally tarnished and caricatured by the media. I don’t think 51% of the public will want to vote for someone who will have vultures flying around her throughout her presidency, picking at her at every conceivable (and inconceivable) opportunity.

    Palin is good and important for suppporting anti-establishment candidates and this is helping to tranform the Republican party and Washington DC. I think we shouldn’t underestimate this important role and we should not become fixated with the residency of the White House.

      1. Certainly not. In fact, surely the media’s pick would be Romney and he’s certainly not someone I’d support.

        I’m just speaking of the reality that the media have done such a thorough job of wrecking the image of Palin in the eyes of the general public that it’ll be a mountain to climb in order for her to win the presidency.

        I just don’t think that people will want to spend most of their time defending their candidate from ridiculous daily smears from the media, as opposed to focusing on the campaign to win an election.

        Long term, however, I think the plan should be to financially ruin the mainstream media, so that we won’t have another situation like the one Palin has suffered.

        1. I tend to think that the media is becoming less and less relevant for a growing number of voters. In fact, it is possible that the media candidates will start doing poorer in elections. We can always hope. I don’t think the media has destroyed Palin’s image. She is doing well in the media, and even better in the co-opted tea party. She has put to much support behind establishment candidates to qualify as a true anti-establishment person. She made it clear recently that she would step aside for an establishment republican if it meant making sure Obama wouldn’t win. Sounds good, but how about informing people of all establishment party failings, then run for office or support real ant-establishment people. She isn’t taking any stands against anyone except to pander to the right concerning the left.

  6. The Left and Right and the media are setting the stage…hopefully the people know how to vote for the “right person” instead of being cajoled, forced fed by the media, or left and right.

    1. Don’t you feel like getting behind her and defending her after hearing that guy on the left side of the table and the argument?

      You are correct, the media sets the stage and ultimately decides who is relevant. They don’t make Ron Paul relevant. They don’t want his message to get popular. But conservative talking points and liberal backlash is the only thing on the menu.

Comments are closed.