Will the outrages ever stop? 
Newsweek‘s “I Can Win” cover story about Sarah Palin is awful.
But Palin fans will have a hard time trying to figure out how to square this puff piece with the notion that the mainstream media is out to get Palin.
The premise is that Palin could run for president–and win. Because, well, that’s what she says. That’s sort of the theme for the whole article, as it is full of quotes and observations from Palin family members and associates who are trying to ‘set the record straight’ about her political career. Like how she was actually a quite moderate governor with a commendable record. But on the national stage, something changed as soon as she stepped into the 2008 campaign:
Palin’s eagerness for the fray lifted a dispirited Republican base and instigated an outsize response from liberal critics.
That’s about the closest the article comes to Palin criticism–noting comments from overreacting liberals. But the press was guilty of getting down in the sewer and going after her family:
The press’s fascination with this picturesque brood quickly turned so darkly speculative that candidate Barack Obama threatened to fire anyone in his campaign found participating in the conjectures.
This was one of Palin’s first disingenuous attacks on the media. There was never much, if any, coverage of these theories that her baby wasn’t really hers. But there was chatter on the Internet, which Palin turned into an attack on the press.
But the best part might be when reporter Peter Boyer tried to substantiate the claim from Palin advisers that she’s actually really up to speed on the issues.
Palin has also become conversant on the subject of quantitative easing, the inflationary effects of which she illustrated with a personal anecdote. “I was ticked off at Todd yesterday” she said. “He walks into a gas station as we’re driving over from Minnesota. He buys a Slim Jim–we’re always eating that jerky stuff–for $2.69. I said, ‘Todd, those used to be 99 cents, just recently!’ And he says, ‘Man, the dollar’s worth nothing anymore.’ A jug of milk and a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs–every time I walk into that grocery store, a couple of pennies more.”
Newsweek is suggesting that Palin’s jerky tale offers a serious insight into the Fed’s policy of quantitative easing, which involves buying Treasury securities to bring down long-term interest rates and stimulate the economy. Republicans and conservatives insist this will cause disastrous inflation, but there’s no evidence that this is happening; David Leonhardt’s New York Times piece a few months ago (3/30/11) actually showed that core inflation is remarkably low right now, especially compared to the 1980s. (Over the last 12 months, core inflation was 1.5 percent.)
So, contrary to what Newsweek would have you believe, Palin’s monitoring of Slim Jim prices do not provide particularly useful insight into the inflationary impact of Federal Reserve policy–or any evidence of Palin’s supposed mastery of policy wonkery.
If this wasn’t so funny, it would be scary.
On second thought, it is pretty goddamn scary, isn’t it?
Luckily, Palin has as much chance of winning the presidency as I have of being named head of Rupert Murdoch’s legal team.
Which leaves us with the frightening prospect of those from both parties who actually do.
And how about that cover photo?
A picture’s worth a thousand words.
None of which you can say during the Family Hour.
whuddathey call prices are tripled! quadrupled! and wages are down – 50%, 75%, $0… for jobless, fund-less? if not inflation, depression,
THey sure cover up what’s going on – inCLUding the nuclear attack on us!!! the past ones and the new one!
They inexplicably high level of support for her across the country is the most blatant testimony to the state of our public education system the last 20-30 years.
Newsweek’s pathetic attempt to transform itself into a journalistic version of the DLC ranks just behind SCOTUS’s stunningly political decision in Bush v. Gore at the top of my personal list of the greatest political disappointments of the past two decades.
How ’bout that “reporting” from the egregious turd Peter Boyer? Forget about the Palins’ over-arching stupidity and mendacity for a second, and re-read that paragraph that Boyer wrote. Holy shit! Is he really that much of a stupid, toadying suck-up? And how many of the Palins’ ardent admirers have to be wondering about their particular circumstances at this point, economic and otherwise? These two cheapjack assholes are wonderin’ about the cost of junkfood sold at a place they could buy out a thousand times over, whilst more than a few of their fans, who don’t have a pot to piss in, actually have to consider very carefully whether or not they should buy a beef stick for basic sustenance. That Newsweek actually printed this horseshit speaks directly to that magazine’s utter depravity and tenth-rate status. And, Doug latimer, how about that photo? All the bad shit that Palin represents rises, converges, and disappears in an instant with one glance.
NORMA J F HARRISON and Sarah Palin must live on Rodeo Drive! Slim Jim “Prices tripled, quadrupled”? (Actually, Norm, an increase from $0.99 to $2.69 is an increase of 272%, NOT 300% or 400% as you seem to claim.) But back to the land of reality — A Slim Jim retails at gas stations and truck stops for about $1.30, an increase of only 131% — and over how many years?
As for the price of a gallon of milk increasing “a few cents” — let’s say a gallon costs about $3.00 and “a few” is $0.07: an increase of 0.02%. My heart bleeds for Norm and Sarah Palin (NOT!)
( ( NewPrice / Old Price ) x 100 ) – 100 = Increase in %
$2.69 over $0.99 is an increase of 172% (approximately)
$3.07 over $3.00 is an increase of 2.33% (approximately)
Core inflation is low? What about peripheral inflation? And what the Heck is the difference?
By the way, $2.69 over $0.99 is 271% inflation, approximately, not 172%. BASIC inflation, for what people actually buy on a daily basis, seems rather high.
If you really want to put recent republican history in perspective, please note that Newt Gingrich has tried to pass himself off as a moderate. And, all points considered, by comparison, sort of is. But only by comparison. Sarah? She sort of popularized right wing wonkyism, and should not attempt to distance herself from her base.
A pole on Friday said ANY republican could beat Obama.So really who cares if she feels she could beat him.Im wondering if i could.As far a Jerky she is full of it.S lim jim may of gone up but real jerky is through the roof.Five bucks and up!
Wait till the book and article comes out next week by a NY crimes reporter hired to do a hit piece(his words). She allowed him to spend weeks with her.He viewed all her E mails(why is no one on fair discussing that). Word is his work is glowing about her. His liberal handlers are fit to be tied.She is not running but the liberal fear of her follows the same time honored well worn path they always tread.Make her sound or look stupid.There has not been a conservative man or woman the libs have believed had an ounce of brains in the past 30 years or more.You see all the grey matter is held in a loving cup by the left.And all those millions who will soon send BAM packing are just to stupid to understand his brilliance.
Not afraid of Sarah Palin. I hope she runs, because there are Republicans with brains, David Brooks comes to mind, and they won’t vote for her.
Martha….It would be normal to vote against her because you disagree with her policies.The same would go for Obama.But if the right wasted all its time and energy proving Barrock was at heart a very stupid twisted little man,with little family values or even a thought in his empty little head, when would we get to his policies?Yet this is ALL the left does with their political adversaries.It is so old hat that if a republican ever does come along who actually is all those things -it may be missed.You play the same card endlessly.If not for the bad press she got for tying her kite to McCain(well deserved)she would be a real ideal for woman.Maybe not in the only template the libs accept for an enlightened woman.After all their Gloria Stienem built box is mighty small.But a dynamic amazing woman who went up in thee toughest man-state we have.If you cant see that i would say read more.And put away your eastern ivy league glasses so you can see the forrest for the trees.Its a big world out there.We must get away from this idea that only oily, slick politicians who talk out both sides of their mouth are the correct fodder for our highest offices.We have become conditioned to the point that when we see someone who is straight forward and transparent we distrust their brains and sanity.
I may not vote for her for a lot of reasons(if she ran).Same with Michelle Bachman.Going in both are more qualified than Obama who had literally no qualifications or executive experience.But my decision would not be based on some spin version of their critical thinking capabilities.It would be based on policy and platform.My God i never saw worse decisions by any candidate than that shown by obama prior to his election as far as critical thinking goes.Look at the list of his radical ties and failures while in lesser office.And since he took office……..Titanic comes to mind.
Oh and martha I missed your reference to Mr brooks.Well yes David brooks thinks Sarah is a cancer on the republican party. Strangely he does not see that of Obama for his side. Brooks fits some template that the left finds acceptable(always a danger sign.).I see him as part conservative- part liberal.A little a this, and a little of that.Like McCain.And if you like Brooks maybe you voted for McCain….
Obama was a leftist along with Bidon.Sarah on the right, and McCain a centrist. Now why do you think he got blown out?Because their was no compromise.The left did not want a compromiser.They wanted hard left.To me he(Brooks) compromises with people who have no idea of compromise.There is a term in battle.We did not receive quarter.And we will not give any.
“A pole on Friday said ANY republican could beat Obama.”
Actually, that’s not true. The poll pitted a generic Republican against President Obama. Every recent poll that matches a named candidate: Romney, Bachmann, Perry, etc against Mr.Obama has the President winning.
“A pole on Friday said ANY republican could beat Obama.”
Mr. “e”, if you insist in referencing this “pole”, at least do us the courtesy of naming this person of Polish descent so that we may read his/her words for ourselves (unless this is just a buddy of yours), and capitalizing the word “Pole”!
Pole….Ha ha …sorry Don, that is funny.
B.S
Actually i have seen “polls” that pit Gumby against Obama and Gumby wins.But that just goes to the core of how people feel about government in general.In the end this will fall one of two ways.Number one a Republican will have to work uphill to beat the pulpit, and money of the president, let alone his message.In this i always give the edge to the president,no matter who he is.Number two is the kicker.That is the president beats himself.Against anyone.This has to deal with the pain index.The state of the country.The standing by his record as it stands, and as it is understood by the public.As we speak this country is borrowing 188 Billion every hour on the hour!As Obama is the chief executive officer of these united states do we :
a)fire the little guys
b)rehire Obama and give him a bonus
c)blame somebody else
d)fire him
To me the logic is simple.He looses because he stands on the state of the union. Blaming Bush wont fly. Blaming the rich is nonsense.
I remember my father hired a brash young man who promised my dad that he would double the amount of business my father did in one store- or quit within a year.He did double it and went on to become a very rich man in his own right.Well Obama made a lot of promises.No one asked for a year.We gave him four.i would respect his critical thinking more if he simply took a good look at the state of “his” union and stepped down of his own free will.But all our politicians are usually dug in deeper than an Alabama tic.So be it Gumby or Romney go he must.On a rail if need be.