John Ziegler Exposes How Palin Derangement Syndrome Works

News Busters ^ | July 3, 2009 | Noel Sheppard

[tricky_k_1972]

John Ziegler Exposes How Palin Derangement Syndrome Works

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
July 3, 2009 - 11:22 ET

Although almost eight months have passed since last year's elections, Palin Derangement Syndrome continues to manifest itself throughout America's press.

As NewsBusters' Mike Sargent reported Tuesday, Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum is gravely afflicted with the illness, and needs to see a team of doctors quickly if he ever wants to be taken seriously by anyone other than the extreme Left.

With that in mind, Palin documentarian John Ziegler had a fascinating radio interview with Politico's Mike Allen Wednesday that shed some light on how PDS works and why it's so pernicious.

To set this up, Allen was on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" earlier in the day, and defended Purdum's piece (15 minute audio available here):

MIKE ALLEN, POLITICO: Nobody can agree on what exactly went wrong with that disastrous campaign. Todd has a great phrase in there where he refers to it as "A Bermuda Triangle of a campaign." [...]

I know that she was advised after the campaign to disappear, to study, to learn foreign policy, to learn economics, learn some of these issues and come back in two years when she was ready. She didn't do it, instead she did a series of stupid interviews that just dug her deeper..." [...]

Sure, she has incredible star power as you point out. She's wanted for fundraisers. We all cover her. But Joe, I don't think she's taken seriously as a policy person. I don't think that that's the sort of circus act the Republicans are looking for. I think she'll get tons of coverage. It's hard to see her at this point being taken as a serious person. 

After playing these audio segments, Ziegler asked Allen: "Which really stupid interviews that Sarah Palin did were you referring to specifically?"

Reasonable question, correct? Yet, no matter how many times Ziegler asked it, Allen never gave one example of Palin giving a stupid interview despite telling MSNBC's Joe Scarborough earlier in the day, "she did a series of stupid interviews that just dug her deeper..."

And therein lies the heart of Palin Derangement Syndrome: making totally false statements about the Alaska governor without being able to back them up.

Sadly, as this is what most media outlets want -- dirt about Palin irrespective of veracity -- the mudslingers not only easily get away with it, but are revered for doing so.

Fortunately, Ziegler was having none of it, and pointed out the hypocrisy to his guest:

You made a very serious allegation that you seem to be backing off of that you can't substantiate, and I'm just. You're a very good reporter. You're not a lefty that I can tell. But I was disappointed that you would make an allegation like that on MSNBC where you're obviously, you know, that's what the audience wants to hear, and then you're not willing to back it up. You're a good reporter, Mike. I would think that you would have some substance behind an allegation like that. [...]

You're saying that there's a perception that's out there. You're presuming that perception is reality, and then you're not, you're making allegations based upon that perception that you have no substance behind. As a reporter, don't you find that at all troubling? If someone else did that, wouldn't you criticize that kind of reporting?   

Allen didn't answer those questions either demonstrating how the state of America's media is such that so-called journalists don't have to substantiate negative allegations concerning Republicans. They can say or write whatever they want about politicians they don't like -- irrespective of facts -- with total impunity.

And therein lies a very serious problem.

Bravo, John. Bravo.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

Bravo

Even Fox News was building up Willard this week. The guy is a “bleeping” Rockefeller Republican. All of those people over the summer didn’t show up in droves to see Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.

[DoughtyOne]

I spent the better part of my life watching people promote the idea that women should be able to do whatever they want. If their desire was family, fine (well not really for the left). If their desire was business related, fine. If their desire was politics, fine, we needed them in politics.

Now we have a woman who has a sound family. She has a good relationship with her kids. She doesn’t just give them kisses in public and send them off to stand in a corner. She hugs them, keeps them close and genuinely loves them.

I’m sure you’ve seen the politicians who give their wives kisses (Gore), and then others like the Bush’s. You can just tell where the real love exists.

Palin is the real deal. She has family and political experience. She is well liked in her own state. She is respected as a women by people on the left. Whether folks can grasp it or not, she’s a contender to be President of the United States.

Frankly, I think she’s pleasant to look at, but she’s a mother and that is how I see her. I’m married so I just don’t look at her like she’s in my sights, if you catch my drift. So the looks thing just doesn’t go farther than that. It couldn’t get my vote on a dare if she wasn’t a conservative. It wouldn’t get my vote even though she is. She will get my vote based on the merits.

If she were to turn into John McCain on the issues, she would never get a vote from me. So much for looks.

Of course she wouldn’t be a Conservative then either.

[101voodoo]

So what about a Palin/Romney (or vice versa) ticket?

[RobbyS]

He wants to be popular. I once went along with a bunch of guys who were making a racist joke about a black fellow employee, I respected The black man saw me join in the laughter. and of course he cut me thereafter. I’ve never forgotten that, and it was 56 years ago, East Texas, of course, but my shame was that during my whole life I was never a racist and thought segregation unjustified.

[TribalPrincess2U]

Hell No!

[RobbyS]

As for looks, she has the kind of looks that make me,anyway. think of as someone who could sit in my living room, along with her husband, and that I would end up talking more with her husband than her, while my wife and she talked about what women like to talk about. At the same time, if the discussion got around to politics. I would be all ears, since she obviously knows how to play that game.

[Servant of the Cross]

"If Sarah was really the huge negative they claim, they'd be her biggest champion. They'd practically be demanding she run in '12."

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with that. Good call.

[libbylu]

Sarah is the best role model I can see. I really believe she is walking with God, and he’ll take her where she is supposed to go, president or not.

[Snurple]

I really believe she is walking with God, and he’ll take her where she is supposed to go, president or not.

Im sure of that, wholeheartedly agree.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with that.

[Deo volente]

The Culture of Death hates a strong proponent of the Culture of Life and fears the prospect of her in the White House. Nothing too surprising here.

[razorback-bert]

But Joe, I don't think she's taken seriously as a policy person.

I don't want a policy wonk as President, I want someone guided by basic principles.

[DaveyB]

Sarah is like Rush - any piece about her gets more readers or higher ratings. With falling readership and a cadre of insecure media types wanting to be noticed, Sarah is just to big a draw not to exploit. Yet like criticizing Rush they don’t defame their target of derision rather they are galvanizing Palin as as a bonafide contender for the visionary leader of the GOP for the next couple of decades.

[Seven plus One]

How much more defeatist can we get?

Wow, I don't know if there really is a limit. Bad attitudes, even ones that obviously harm us and the causes we love, seem to be the default setting for human behavior. It isn't so much agreement with the democrat line as plain intellectual laziness. This Belmont Club post by Fernandez that I encountered yesterday is a fascinating treatment of this topic. Not the Palin rap specifically, but left propaganda as as a tactic that we must deal with if we are to get anything done at all.

[dandiegirl]

If Sarah was really the huge negative they claim, they’d be her biggest champion. They’d practically be demanding she run in ‘12.

Mitt must be the huge negative then because the media is pushing him-beware.

[Little Ray]

She’s better prepared to be President than Obama was (or ever will be).
And based on their behavior, she’s better prepared and more qualified than most other ‘Pubbie “front runners.”

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the mention. I believe our problem with the propaganda on the left, is that we ignore it and let it fester. Why do we have this problem with ecology? Because we gifted the left the debate for the better part of three decades. We didn't stand up to them and out them for the crazy kooks they were. And so their message became gospel.

[RJL]

MIKE ALLEN, POLITICO: Nobody can agree on what exactly went wrong with that disastrous campaign.

Yes we can, the disaster was John McCain.

Many voters, myself included, voted for Sarah Palin, NOT John McCain. Without Sarah, it would have been a true rout.

[RJL]

What I have been completely flabbergasted at, are the Republican and even Conservative people who have bought into the left’s attempt to slander Palin for being ill informed on public policy matters.

The Palin train is coming down the tracks and quickly picking up speed, the Republicans can get behind the train or stand on the tracks yelling stop as they're run over, but the train is still heading to Washington D.C.