Now on ScienceBlogs: Another contender for the worst reporting ever: "Coma man"
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« Feinstein: Cheney Ordered CIA to Lie | Main | Sotomayor and Alito, Take 2 »
Posted on: July 15, 2009 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton
From You Know Who:
"People are so tired of the partisan stuff even my own son is not a Republican," Palin said.
Says the woman who made her entry on the public stage by being McCain's attack dog against Obama, accusing him of "palling around with terrorists" and of being a socialist. This would be a lot like Sylvester Stallone claiming that people are tired of bad boxing movies. Really? Then stop making them.
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
Greg Laden's Blog 11.24.2009
The World's Fair 11.24.2009
Effect Measure 11.24.2009
Starts With a Bang 11.23.2009
ERV 11.23.2009
Comments
Bets on whether he's in the Alaska Independence Party?
Posted by: kehrsam | July 15, 2009 9:34 AM
He's either tired of "partisan stuff" or he's tired of Republicans.
But in Palin's mind, if people weren't tired of partisan stuff, then clearly everyone would be Republican.
Posted by: Odie | July 15, 2009 9:52 AM
I just found out that one of my co-workers is a huge Palin fan, who thinks she is incredibly smart and would help the country, and that she will be the winner in 2012. I didn't know anyone that deluded in person before - I've met creationists, and work with religious people, but...wow.
As for the comment itself, what does her son's political views even have to do with people being tired of partisan stuff? Is she claiming that if he wasn't her son, she wouldn't have a problem with his affiliation? And that does leave off her lipstick pitbull bit (although I do find the "Quitbull" name for her as really appropriate).
Posted by: Badger3k | July 15, 2009 10:18 AM
It's encouraging that her son can think for himself. This comment makes him seem like a pretty smart guy.
Posted by: catgirl | July 15, 2009 10:20 AM
I'm not sure I'd tell moms (IF my moms was anything like Sarah The Impalinator) that I didn't belong to whatever whackfaction group she belongs to. I would also keep a bag packed and sleep with a chair under the doorknob.
Posted by: democommie | July 15, 2009 10:43 AM
It's encouraging that her son can think for himself. This comment makes him seem like a pretty smart guy.
Actually given that he is the product of the "quitbull" (I like that too), and the former first-dude, the fact that he can walk upright makes him seem like a pretty smart guy ... at least in comparison...
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 15, 2009 11:37 AM
"even my own son is not a Republican," Palin said....She went on to note that he just turned 1 and has been Down's Syndrome providing a explanation for his lack of support for the republican party. "We believe that with continued pray and home schoolin' he'll get it right in the end."
Posted by: Lorax | July 15, 2009 12:40 PM
There is another way to look at Palins comment. Perhaps this is an angry swipe at those Republicans who have been critical of her decision to step down as Governor.
Posted by: Cheddar | July 15, 2009 1:08 PM
At least when Paul McCartney said some people have had enough of silly love songs, he disagreed and stood his ground.
Posted by: QrazyQat | July 15, 2009 1:51 PM
This is just a run up to her announcing a new Bull Moose party. She should call it the Pit Bull (in lipstick) Shoots a Moose party.
But seriously, she's going to try an independent run. Thanks, Sarah. Obama in '12 then, too.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 15, 2009 3:55 PM
accusing him of "palling around with terrorists" and of being a socialist.
Yeah--Tis to laugh, Ed.
Homemade bombmakers getting a freebie pass rather than languishing in jail is such a hoot, and those who pal around with them in the bowels of Stalinism Lite are now gods to walk among us.
Funny thing is, that since these charges are fairly accurate, and the difference of Obama's minimal entry into radicalism's arms and support for bomb tossers is one without a distinction, your critique is marred.
Posted by: Sauron the Great | July 15, 2009 5:50 PM
"...minimal entry into radicalism's arms..."
For a second there, I thought that "Sauron the Great" (modest, aren't we?) was writing about Sarah Palin's videotaped speech to the Alaskan Independence Party.
Posted by: daniel rotter | July 15, 2009 9:43 PM
...or John McCain gushing over convicted burglar, would-be kidnapper and would-be murderer G. Gordon Liddy.
Posted by: daniel rotter | July 15, 2009 10:00 PM
Sauron the Great: worse. You're here. We're here. We have made visits of a temporary and non-business nature to places far away.
This means that you "pal around with tourists"!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 15, 2009 11:13 PM
Posted by: Taz | July 15, 2009 11:30 PM
"You see, we have this pesky little system wherein people have to be convicted and sentenced in order to languish in jail."
You can thank COINTEL, that hotbed of antiauthoritarian lefies, for dropping the ball on that one.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 15, 2009 11:44 PM
OT...
Akron, Ohio, has decided that it's perfectly fine to hold court in a church:
http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/50898157.html
Posted by: Christopher | July 16, 2009 12:41 AM
It's not surprising her son won't say he's a Republican, if Palin was my mother I wouldn't even admit to being a Palin. That's if this is even true, which would be a first for Mrs Palin.
Posted by: tincture | July 16, 2009 2:07 AM
tincture:
I'm just glad she uses married name. Her maiden name is "Heath".
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 16, 2009 6:36 AM
Michael -
Don't tell me - you're the secret love-child Charles R Heath!
No wonder Heddle got in huff with you. ;) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 16, 2009 6:54 AM
Re Dingojack
Speaking of Prof. Heddle, I haven't seen him around lately defending his heroine. Of course, he never really defended her. He just cherry picked trying to make a case that Biden and Obama were worse.
Posted by: SLC | July 16, 2009 9:08 AM
SLC:
Bad peoples hurt heddle's feelings when disagreeing with some of his skydaddy claptrap. He says he's done here, but we still have mroberts and now a new player, Sauron the Hardon.
Sauron:
You don't get out much--of your mom's basement, I mean--do you? Those of us who read such archaic forms of publishing as newspapers, magazines and, believe it or not, books--as well as ocassionally listenting to the news from some outlet other than Fox--form our own opinions. Do you folks have an RCA plug under your toupees (or, in your case, some sort of optical nerve thingy) so that you can be plugged into Chairman Murdoch's wisdom and just download it. Or is it still done the old fashioned way, by taking the plug out of the top of your skull and ladeling the shit in to it?
Posted by: democommie | July 16, 2009 9:44 AM
Says the woman who made her entry on the public stage by being McCain's attack dog against Obama, accusing him of "palling around with terrorists" and of being a socialist. This would be a lot like Sylvester Stallone claiming that people are tired of bad boxing movies. Really? Then stop making them.
What a ridiculous post. I'm not fan of Sarah Palin, but wasn't that her job as VP candidate? Wasn't she supposed to go after the other guy?? And how was she wrong by saying that Obama pals around with terrorists? Wasn't Bill Ayers a terrorist? And how was the accusation that Obama is a socialist not accurate? Even Hugo Chavez has said Obama is more radical than he is:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconomy/idUSTRE5520GX20090603
Let's see, Obama nationalized most of the auto industry, a good part of the banking industry, and wants to nationalize health care and eliminate private insurance. That's a pretty good chunk of our economy. How is Obama not a socialist?
Posted by: mroberts | July 17, 2009 10:18 AM
What a ridiculous response. Did Obama actually participate in any terrorist acts or conspiracies? No. Did Ayers even carry out any terrorist acts? No. (And the people who shamelessly support anti-Castro terrorists and regimes that quietly fund al Qaeda -- who actually DID kill a lot of people -- and threats against abortion providers and religious dissidents in the military, really aren't in a position to complain about anyone else "palling around with terrorists.")
Even Hugo Chavez has said Obama is more radical than he is...
Since when was Hugo Chavez a reliable source on any subject? Besides, if Obama is more "radical" than Chavez, that's probably because Chavez is just another reactionary dictator using oil money to buy allegiance and silence dissent. What kind off idiot thinks it's wrong to be more "radical" than that?
Let's see, Obama nationalized most of the auto industry, a good part of the banking industry, and wants to nationalize health care and eliminate private insurance.
Let's see, once again mroberts is wrong on all counts: what little "nationalization" Obama is doing is not permanent, which means it's not "socialist." And no, he had absolutely no intent to "eliminate private insurance."
Maybe you should go back to fixating on gays, gold and breast-feeding. At least you'll SOUND more educated if you stick to those subjects.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2009 10:42 AM
@mroberts #23:
No, he wasn't (at the time Obama worked with him) a terrorist. I could with equal accuracy say that the McCin-Palin campaign not only palled around with, but took money from, terrorist financiers.
When? My memory may be failing, but I thought that the bank bailout was last Autumn; as was the bailout of Ford, GM and Chrysler. In any event, are they publicly owned now? I thought it was debt, not equity, finance.
Posted by: Robin Levett | July 17, 2009 10:43 AM
re: mroberts
And to continue with Robin's critique, there is nothing in the health care plan in Congress right now that would nationalize health care or eliminate private insurance. The most radical part of it is a public insurance pool, covering those who don't have insurance otherwise, which would compete against private plans. Can't compete against something that doesn't exist.
As I've said to others, you gotta stop using AM radio as your only source of news.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 18, 2009 1:06 AM
mroberts each and every comment reinforces Mr. Lincoln's advice:
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Posted by: democommie | July 18, 2009 7:49 AM
Let's see, once again mroberts is wrong on all counts: what little "nationalization" Obama is doing is not permanent, which means it's not "socialist." And no, he had absolutely no intent to "eliminate private insurance."
It will be permanent in most respects, especially in light of what can be called "distinction with no difference" when government mandated "health care" all but pushes out private insurers in a phrase and phenomenon you don't hear much about, but is very real in the history of socialized meds, called "crowd out."
Posted by: Sauron the Great | September 22, 2009 7:49 PM
democreep,
Your schtick is gettin' old, bud.
Word to the not so wiseass....
At least Modusoperandi gave a brief chuckle. I give credit where due.
As to Taz, which....God help his poor mamma...
You see, we have this pesky little system wherein people have to be convicted and sentenced in order to languish in jail. At least we used to.
Good show. You'll have to run for office someday.
Well--what can I say?
Either the law has the ability to get around to prosecuting people, or it does not. In the case of men like Ayers, apparently it did not. For whatever reason. But it matters not.
I doubt this would be much consolation to the intended victims of his little lab mixures of chemicals.
I appreciate your admiration for the rules of the road, the law, and how we'll all be good little boys and girls should this all go into full effect. But I noticed also a friend of mine got nipped nontheless even though "the law" also states that oncoming traffic "had" to stop at that funny octagonal sign.
So apprently, there is the "law"--and then there's what people do.
I was mentioning what people DO.
Ya know....hobbies...spare time away from the brats and the old ball-n-chain sorta thing....
...like cooking up something a little stronger than Molotov cocktails in the living room while having some yucks with your hairy pals..
That sorta thing...
We've all done it...RIGHT?
Well...
Ayers and his cohorts' legacy is horrific, to be mild and kind. But these ARE Obama's ideological brothers-in-arms.
You might not like that, you might deny that, or you might be doing some fist-pumping right about now.
But that's the word, brother.
Posted by: Sauron the Great | September 22, 2009 8:02 PM