Liberals Complain About Palin Event

I find this criticism to be laughable.

But Palin appears to be doing her best to keep a low profile on this trip: no press will be allowed into the Milwaukee auditorium where she will speak and those who have paid the $30 admittance fee are unable to carry in cell phones, cameras, laptops, or recording devices of any kind.

Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate told the Wisconsin Radio Network he finds all these restrictions “bizarre.”

“You know, for someone who claims to be a rogue and isn’t afraid of what other people think it really is sort of hypocritical to not let the media, the press cover your event.”

She is a private citizen speaking at a private event.  She has absolutely no obligation to make it open to the public.  Also, I’m willing to bet that she’s being paid for this engagement.  Many, if not all, paid speakers prohibit recording the speech because it makes it harder to sell the next engagement if everyone can just watch it on YouTube.  Tate sure has a sense of entitlement to other people’s stuff, but that makes sense since he’s never had to earn a living outside of liberal politics. 

1. Liberals complain? Perish the thought.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 1257 hrs




2. Local talk radio hack Vikki McKenna in Madison went on a two week whine fest because Al Gore’s visit to address the Society of Environmental Journalists wasn’t trumpeted on the front page of the daily paper everyday.  She and her callers deduced that this was a slimy, underhanded tactic by the liberal media™ to hide the fact that Gore would be in town, presumably doing slimy, underhanded liberal things. Sounds like Palin’s visit is provoking a similar response from the other team.

   It really is a stupid game, and the players are absolute morons.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 1404 hrs




3. I find it interesting that you equate a talk radio host with the Wisconsin Democratic Party chairman.  Which should take insult with your view, I wonder

   But I do agree, both sides of the game are tools.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 1511 hrs




4. Owen, I actually was agreeing with EVERY word you wrote up until the last sentence.  Palin’ is entitled to charge admission for her speaking engagement and restrict recordings of it; it’s not like this is a book tour…

   @Jasons: glad you both posted on the same thread so I can keep track of who’s who.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 1519 hrs




5. Palin is a national embarassment. The less we have to see or hear from her the better.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 1546 hrs




6. Joe Mamma you got it wrong, the national embarrassment was elected President

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 1623 hrs




7. As long as she doesn’t give any “shout-outs” I’ll be happy…

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 1644 hrs




8. Was Mike Tate not aware of our President’s visit to Madison this week, the one that was closed to the public and was invitation only?

   http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=175318

   Huh.

   Pot, meet kettle.  Kettle, meet pot.

   Posted by hsgbdmama on November 06, 2009 at 1657 hrs




9. @Chris

   You mean like POTUS gave a ‘shout out’ to, and I quote, “congressional Medal of Honor (sic, actually it is Medal of Freedom since he is a civilian) even before he made refernce to the tragedy that was unfolding at Ft Hood? I guess he has priorities straight anyway.  Let me give a shoutout to our CinC.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 1706 hrs




10. Joe Mamma - if you don’t like Palin - you don’t have to pay to see the event.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 1756 hrs




11. I think the interesting commentary and discussion would come from asking who would even attend this event.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 1803 hrs




12. One interesting aspect of the Palin appearance is the fact that the event apparently didn’t sell out.  Tickets were still available last night on the WRTL web site.  This isn’t a particularly large venue; it’s not like trying to sell out the Bradley Center.  Maybe even the abortion nuts are giving up on her.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 2133 hrs




13. I keep hearing that Sarah Palin is,“a National Embarassment”, but I don’t believe I’ve heard exactly why, other than the nebulous, “she’s stupid” and similar comments.  I wonder if the esteemed Joe Mamma would tell me how she is embarrassing and how she might be more so than the current POTUS.

    Posted by Steve on November 07, 2009 at 0713 hrs




14. @ elovrich - Yeah he did blow that one, no question.  He’s made mistakes before; he’ll continue to make them, too.  And if I’m not mistaken, I believe there is a long history and catalog of past presidents making misstatements in front of a microphone.  It tends to happen, and these days, every single one of them is caught and is usually ends up as fodder for Letterman and Leno.

    Also, keep in mind that his remarks were made at a previously scheduled event honoring Native Americans.  It was not, as I’ve read in some other accounts, a Press Conference arranged to specifically address the Fort Hood attack.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2009 at 0840 hrs




15. Laker, most people could see that it was at another event, but this WH gave the time that BO was going to give a statement, and there is no reason he couldn’t have saved those remarks until afterward.

    What he should have done is say something like, “Thank you for inviting me here.  Before I say anything else, I want to talk about what happened at Fort Hood today ...” make his statement and then he could have done his shout outs and whatnot.

    But to make the nation sit there and listen to him making lighthearted remarks for three minutes was insensitive at best.

    Posted by hsgbdmama on November 07, 2009 at 0909 hrs




16. Thanks, and I guess that is the part that I am missing.  Did the White House tell the cable networks that he was going to make remarks and specifically ask for their presense?  I’m asking because I don’t know; I only saw his remarks much later in the evening on the local news (without the introductory comments).

    I guess I’m very neutral on this.  On the one hand, I appreciate the difficulty the president must have about addressing each loss of military life or each tragic event that occurs.  Yet, the lives lost were not in the line of battle and were at the hands of a fellow soldier on U.S. soil; as far as we know, this was the act of an individual and not some sort of terrorist conspiracy.  So now, does this make it fall into the category of “workplace violence”, and if so, is the president now expected to also comment on the shootings in Orlando yesterday?  I’m not trying to diminish the tragedy as much as trying to put it in perspective.  It’s sort of like how President Bush was unfairly criticized because he rarely met with the families of lost soldiers from Irag and Afghanistan.  But I’m sure he struggled with how do you honor one family’s ultimate sacrifice and not another’s.  I imagine it’s an extreme balancing act that kept him and keeps Obama up at night

    “But to make the nation sit there and listen to him making lighthearted remarks for three minutes was insensitive at best”.  First, no one MAKES us sit in front of a television for ANYTHING.  Insensitive?  I’m not so sure of that.  Could it have been handled better?  Absolutely.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2009 at 1003 hrs




17. This happened at an army base.  As CiC, Obama is the head of this organization, so it is expected that he has a presence and says something.

    Yes, the WH said the remarks will be delievered at a certain time.  Yes, I will use the term “makes” because there were many people waiting to hear from our CiC, the leader of our nation, to provide words of comfort and reassurance in the face of this tragedy.

    Posted by hsgbdmama on November 07, 2009 at 1017 hrs




18. “Maybe even the abortion nuts are giving up on her” No, the abortion nuts hate her. Those of us who know that abortion is murder still admire her.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2009 at 1310 hrs




19. Palin’s visit is private and she can charge and restrict entry.  Damn straight she can ban cameras and cell phones:  People are stealing private speaking engagements and posting them on Youtube, as Owen said.  Those people should be prosecuted as those pirates stealing and passing on music and movies and other media that is private property.

    ow as to her speaking ability, there are better female Republican speakers I’d be willing to pay to see, but then again there’s usually a jazz show somewhere in Milwaukee on a weekend.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2009 at 1814 hrs




20. “Maybe even the abortion nuts are giving up on her” No, the abortion nuts hate her. Those of us who know that abortion is murder still admire her.

    People like this are ruining the world.  Education is key.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2009 at 1931 hrs




21. Right, anon. We’ll just keep killing unborn humans for our personal convenience in the meantime.

    Posted by Steve on November 07, 2009 at 1958 hrs




22. Wrong, anon.  The abortion nuts are the people who would deny emergency contraception in a hospital emergency room to a woman who has just been raped.  It is apparently God’s plan, after all, that the victim should bear the child, if fertilization of the unimplanted egg has already occurred?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 0758 hrs




23. Then there is the other side of the abortion argument, in which left wing nuts paint the mental image of pro-life activists patrolling hospital emergency rooms, looking to shout down rape victims looking for contraception…

    ... which potentially represents maybe one case vs. one million ‘standard’ abortions…

    Posted by Smeety on November 08, 2009 at 0845 hrs




24. ... make that ‘non-contraception’...

    Posted by Smeety on November 08, 2009 at 0846 hrs




25. Au contraire, Smeety.  The abortion nuts I wrote about are the ones who opposed the legislation to mandate availability of emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms.  Believe it or not, it took many sessions to pass this common-sense legislation.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 1907 hrs




26. Not exactly true. Doctors, nurses & hospitals felt mandateconflicted with their religious beliefs.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 2048 hrs




27. Answer this question, Smeety:  Is it God’s plan that the victim should bear the child, if fertilization of the unimplanted egg has already occurred?  If you answer in the affirmative, then you are one of the abortion nuts.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 2248 hrs




28. RO - if you knew anything about God - you would already have the answer to your question.

    If you are still confused - try reading up on sovereignty.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 2347 hrs




29. Bill, thanks…

    ... and we’re talking about one out of a million potential abortions…  they like to use extreme cases to justify the norm…

    Posted by Smeety on November 09, 2009 at 0115 hrs




30. For all those who ask why Palin is an embarressment look no further than her comments about “In God We Trust” placement on newer coins.  This was done during the Bush Whitehouse.  These coins are not new and it wasn’t a Democratic decision to move the placement of these important words on our money.  She makes old news sound like it has something to do with the current administration.  The least her speech writers could do is check the facts before she gets on stage and embarresses herself.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 15, 2009 at 0118 hrs