From right-wing shock-jock Michael Savage:
You know what disturbs me? This is the part that worries me a little bit. [Palin] went to work for Fox News, and at the same time, she’s fundamentally running for the presidency. At the same time. I mean, the last I checked, you can’t do that. The last I checked is that you have to leave a media job in order to announce your candidacy. What is this? You can’t have it both ways. Either you’re running, or you’re not. Don’t play a game with the American people. We’re not stupid.
Umm…actually, you are.
Haha!! You aren’t that stupid Savage? You’ve been proving how stupid you are for the past how many ever years.
you speak the truth.
tell it
Sounds like Savage didn’t notice the latest Supreme Court ruling. Doesn’t he realize that Fox News Corp can now sponsor Sarah Palin for President? If Rupert Murdock hadn’t been born in Australian, he could buy himself the job like Berlusconi did in Italy. Instead, he has to use a little Sarah Sockpuppet to become the supreme CEO of America, Inc.
Also, I wonder what rulebook Savage “checked.” The Constitution doesn’t prohibit a contract employee of a global corporation from being president, does it? Not specifically, I’m sure Roberts and Alito would agree with that “strict interpretation.”
But, I know what Savage means: It didn’t used to be so fucking obvious!
Is it common consensus that that’s basically what Berlusconi did? Sort of like Bloomberg in New York?
yes and no.
Yes Berlusconi pretty much bought his way to office.
No its not like Bloomberg because AFAIK Bloomberg is honest. If Bloomberg also made all his money through mob connections, that would be similar.
Speaking of dyspeptic conservative commentators, did anyone read this David Brooks column?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html
I thought it was an interesting take. Do people think he’s right?
no. I don’t think he’s right and if I really wanted to take the time i could pick out a lie or at least a distortion in every sentence.
I agree with you specifically re: the line “Voters are not reacting to the particulars of each bill. They are reacting against the total activist onslaught.” I think it ignores how purposefully the right has distorted this debate and confused the populace.
The whole article is based on that assumption, and if you don’t buy it (I don’t), then Brooks’s article falls about. However, if you accept it as a truism, then the article is persuasive.