The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Amused By Overreactions to Any Criticisms of Palin

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Amused By Overreactions to Any Criticisms of Palin

By Quin Hillyer on 8.16.11 @ 2:17PM

Why is it impossible to provide any balanced view of Sarah Palin, criticizing where called for but defending her when called for and praising her when called for? The job of a columnist is to have no permanent favorites or targets, but to provide a consistent framework of analysis -- opinionated, to be sure, but with those opinions applied according to consistent standards, no matter whose ox is gored. Hence, I can praise Palin to high heaven, and I can defend her, but Lord forbid I ever offer constructive criticism and analysis tempered by sincere compliments (e.g.: "The undeniable fact for conservatives is that when it comes to broad principles, Sarah Palin 'gets it.' And when it comes to pluck, she's overflowing."), much less take her to task for wholly unmerited rudeness.

Conservatives blind to their own faults or those of their favorites will not be in good position to prevail in the court of public opinion. For that matter, conservatives who behave too much like sports fans therefore fail to hold their favorites to account until it's too late, thus giving them a false sense of security that ill serves them in elections (not to mention ill serves the country when they govern). You should see the vitriol directed at me from fellow conservatives when I dared criticize Bush 43 for being insufficiently conservative, back when he was riding high in the polls. Then, suddenly, when the bottom fell out for Bush politically but I dared defend him on some matters on which he still was correct, some of those very same conservatives blasted me for daring defend such a big-government RINO.

It shouldn't matter, though, whom you root for. What should matter is the principles you stand for and the knowledge of how to apply them in practice. Sarah Palin messed up with regard to reporter Alex Pappas. She was rude and unprofessional. Pappas, to his credit, was not angry, but bemused. The point is that this is an example of Palin needlessly risking antagonizing even those in the press corps who aren't inclined against her -- and, worse, actively trying to embarrass them by making sure another reporter heard her berate the would-be friendly reporter. This is no way for Palin to make her own political situation any easier. She should be above such behavior. It is no sin to point that out.

View all comments (48) | Leave a comment

LiveFreeOrDie| 8.16.11 @ 2:57PM

The description of Palin's conversation with the reporter was harsh and didn't match up with the actual conversation.

Teflon93| 8.16.11 @ 2:58PM

The trouble, Quin, is that your "consistent framework of analysis" isn't consistent but for your disdain for populist conservatives like Palin and Bachmann and your admiration for Rockefeller Republicans who went to all the right schools.

Your complaint is not ideological at all but rather rank snobbery. How DARE Sarah Palin take umbrage at yet another reporter? It doesn't matter one whit to you that Pappas was offered an apology---it's that she had the audacity to call him up and chew him out in the first place.

Well, sorry, but journalists aren't above being jacked up. It doesn't matter if they're Ivy Leaguers---they get what comes with the job. If you want to sit there and ask a complete stranger if they would submit to their husband, or if they're a flake, or any of the myriad of other insulting and unprofessional questions they ask to spew the propaganda they do---then you take what comes with it.

"But it's so UNFAIR!"

So what? I have yet to see a fair journalist. Perhaps one day I might. But the chances of it being your little buddy are pretty slight given his associations.

Teflon93| 8.16.11 @ 3:02PM

Let me tell you something else.

I witnessed a murder once. The local news team staked out the apartment complex where it occurred around the clock for two days. The Sheriff's Dept press guy asked me to talk to them on behalf of our neighbors knowing they wouldn't go away until they did. I did it, then watched their coverage.

Out of all the networks, only one came close to getting the facts straight---every other one had misstatements, misquotes, and generally asked silly and stupid questions.

The network that got it right was Telemundo.

Professional? You don't know what the word means.

You'll need to learn Spanish I guess to find out.

Quin| 8.16.11 @ 3:20PM

I have fought against Rockefeller Republicans all my life. I'm allergic to the Ivy League. Nobody offered an apology to Pappas. What "associations" does Pappas have that are suspect?
Otherwise (meaning not at all) your comment actually makes sense.

Teflon93| 8.16.11 @ 4:06PM

I thought an apology had been offered but was mistaken.

Pappas' suspect associate was you, Quin---given your hysterical anti-Palin bias, you're hardly the one to vouch for Pappas' objective bona fides. It's a bit like Clinton swearing Dick Morris didn't cheat on his wife, you know?

Which Rockefeller Republicans of the current Republican presidential field do you oppose? Which Republican candidates from non-Ivy League schools do you support?

What precisely is your standard for professional political conduct? What precisely is Sarah Palin's current profession?

Quin| 8.16.11 @ 6:10PM

Talk about easy questions. I have made no secret of my disdain for Mitt Romney's record; I am not impressed by Huntsman; I blasted the heck out of Newt Gingrich (a true Rockefeller Republican; he actually worked in Rockefeller's 1968 campaign for president). As for supporting non-Ivy candidates for president, let's see.... Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Dick Cheney when he was considering running in 1996, Fred Thompson in 2008, and I've certainly be complimentary of Rick Santorum this year. Not an Ivy Leaguer in the bunch.
What hysterical anti-Palin bias? Did you even bother to read the links in my post, wherein I either defended or praised Palin?
Professional political conduct? How about not being so rude as to hang up on somebody who has given no offense?

Teflon93| 8.16.11 @ 7:22PM

I read pretty much everything you write for the magazine and this site, Quin---commenters are not calling you out because you're not anti-Palin. Indeed, you don't deny that you aren't, but point to specific instances where you didn't demonstrate it. Okay, I buy that---but it's a different question.

Now I'm a bit lost---is your issue with Palin calling Pappas on the headline (which he supposedly had nothing to do with), with her calling over a Politico reported (which RSM says didn't happen), or with her hanging up on Pappas? Perhaps all three?

You missed one easy question: what precisely is Palin's profession?

You can't be unprofessional, after all, conforming to the standards of a profession to which you do not belong.

Shall I speculate you skipped over that one because you thought it was too trivial to answer or because it was a good question?

My own answer is Palin is a public speaker, author, and TV personality. She holds no public office and has not entered the running for any yet. Perhaps she will this cycle---perhaps not.

Professional standards---by whatever certifying body applies to politicians though I know of none---surely do not apply to non-politicians.

Now don't you think you were hasty and over-the-top in your description of this incident and branding her a diva over it? Especially given you're not a Beltway elitist looking down his nose at some hick from Wasila, Alaska?

You did call her and give her a chance to tell her side of it, right? Journalistic professionalism demands such things....

rdman| 8.18.11 @ 1:17AM

Crickets... nothing but crickets.

Did you call Palin and attempt to verify??????

More crickets???? Journalistic professionalism, my ass... more like a bush league hack!!

Dai Alanye| 8.16.11 @ 10:24PM

I'm a Santorum fan, so I appreciate Quin for that. But there's no doubt he gives the impression of being overly critical of Palin, possibly due to an unconscious bias.

BD57| 8.16.11 @ 7:03PM

Quin is a "suspect associate"????

Great - - - now folks on our side are wearing tinfoil hats ,...

Teflon93| 8.16.11 @ 7:25PM

I contend Quin's got a real bias against Palin---I ascribe it to Beltway Fever but he vehemently objects to that characterization and points to good examples of his supporting non-Establishment candidates.

In that sense, Quin vouching for somebody not being anti-Palin would be like me vouching for somebody to be not anti-Romney: I am anti-Romney and me defending someone against that charge would be suspect. After all, how am I the best judge of objectivity toward Romney given I loathe the man?

You on the wavelength now, my man?

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.16.11 @ 3:07PM

Quin,
Change subjects, and quit being a horse's ass. There are too many issues that need addressing.
You have a podium. Use it for some good purpose.

Purple Lips| 8.16.11 @ 3:10PM

"Why is it impossible to provide any balanced view of Sarah Palin, criticizing where called for but defending her when called for and praising her when called for?"

Because Quinn, she's hot. And most of the men that support her would like nothing more than to spend a long evening with her.

Many conservative housewives know this inuitively. That is way, Palin's support amongst married conservative women is so low. They know hubby's attachment to Palin is more erotic than personal.

When you realize that, you will understand why so many men here defend Palin is if Palin was thier wife.

Teflon93| 8.16.11 @ 3:12PM

Then why do we defend Rick Santorum? Is he hot too?

Find another talking point---this one is just ugly liberal women giving vent to their envy.

simon templar| 8.16.11 @ 3:24PM

Well, at least it is not homoerotic..had any tingles down the leg lately? You are just another ignorant, babbling, non sensical liberal troll not deserving of a real response.

Occam's Tool| 8.16.11 @ 5:48PM

She's smart AND hot.

But I defend Palin because I think she would defend my babies, too.

Purple Lips| 8.16.11 @ 3:19PM

But Quin et als. have critiqued several candidates, and not a peep from the peanut gallery. Yet, even the most mild of critiques leveled at Madame Palin and you people let loose an earful of vitriolic self righteousness that goes on for hours. And the Palin groupies are primairily men. Sex is the only answer to such a riddle. Actually, the answer is quite obvious. If drool could be transmitted via the internet, the ISPs would have to invest in vat sized droll buckets.

simon templar| 8.16.11 @ 3:25PM

Two words, Barack Obama.
Ah, the tingles, fainting, and sea water recession begins.Projecting again.

simon templar| 8.16.11 @ 3:20PM

Why? Three reasons.
1) when you criticize someone it helps your cause, credibility and purpose to at least have some substantial, factual, and pertinent criticisms and an argument that has a reasonable point to make.
2) it is not a good idea to join in the attack of another conservative that has been maligned, smeared, hated, and lied about by your opposition. Particularly, when that oppositional attack is not hatred, smear, and criticism towards that person per se but what that person stands for that is really what your opposition is seeking to destroy.
It is not only incredibly stupid and unwise but it is suspect. You are not following Ronald Reagans first rule.
3) Everything that is being said of Palin and Bachmann was said about Ronald Reagan. This is as old as Karl Marx and has been the major ploy by the Left to make damn sure a real true conservative is never elected nor that conservativism itself is ever taken seriously. One of the trolls here said it quite eloquently and honestly when she said these extremist right wing crazies pop up every once in a while and we successfully smash them down from Quayle to Bachmann. Quayle a crazy right wing extremist? Laughable.

It is also a good idea not to use the same talking points as your opposition which does not give a hoot about accuracy, truth, or facts.
A mature, professional who actually has some concerns about the viability and potential of a candidate sticks to the facts not conjecture and petty slams. Here I will help you.

You could say this, though I relate to many of Ms. Palin's political positions and recognize her many strengths, I do not think she is ready for a solo run for the Presidency. She is in many ways is a very young person, she does indeed have many leadership qualities, but I do not believe she is seasoned enough when you consider that she was brought onto the national stage only 2 years ago. Let's examine both her strengths and weakneses....
Now, that was not so hard!?

Quin| 8.16.11 @ 3:22PM

No, it's not so hard. In fact, that's exactly what I did with my major feature for TAS, linked in this very post.

ejp| 8.16.11 @ 3:33PM

The last sentence of your hit job did nothing of the kind with the cracks about her as a "difficult diva with a rude streak". She has been more the victim of difficult divas with rude streaks in the press corps (i.e. Katie Couric) then one who measures up to that title.

simon templar| 8.16.11 @ 3:36PM

Then stick with it and do not lower yourself to this level of journalism. You know I really think you are decent guy at heart and actually very intelligent.

However, I think you spent too much time in the DC beltway. I would bet you are still very young.
I also think you think you are doing the right thing as you have been taught by people you met back there that enculturated you in the world of politics. I certainly understand your drive and ambitions to stand out of the crowd. The best way in the long run is to be honest, truthful, objective as possible, and wise as a serpent but innocent as a dove. Do not create an opening for the opposition, control the narrative, and never use their talking points...

Bob Grant| 8.16.11 @ 6:05PM

Simon,

Today we examine her weaknesses. She's clearly thin skinned and if the story is correct, that she dressed down a reporter within earshot of another reporter, smacks of pettiness and rank amateurism.

Brandt Hardin| 8.16.11 @ 3:25PM

There’s no end to the lengths Mama Grizzly will go to market her image for profit. She IS Ruthless and will do ANYthing for money. See what I mean with her indecent proposal at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.....in_15.html

tj| 8.16.11 @ 3:48PM

Liar! Liar Brandt Hardin!!
There’s no end to the lengths Mama Grizzly will go to market her image for profit. She IS Ruthless and will do ANYthing for money. See what I mean with her indecent proposal

JBSmith| 8.16.11 @ 3:50PM

Embarrassing others and throwing people under the bus is Palin's M.O. and forte. She slipped up and let her true colors shine through. She's done this since day one in politics starting a long time ago in Wasilla. Look into her history. It's all there. No one should be suprised.

Brian72| 8.16.11 @ 3:56PM

Attention Quinn Hillyer:

It seems one of your own contributors, Stacy McCain, has done some actual reporting on this situation, and has debunked your account of events:

"What is false about the developing media version of the Palin-Pappas narrative, according to McCormick and others, is three things:

1. Governor Palin did not personally dial up Pappas’s number. She asked around among her aides if anyone knew how to get in touch with Pappas. One member of her advance team, Jason Recher, had Pappas’s number, called him and hand the phone to the governor.
2. Governor Palin did not summon a Politico reporter to listen in on the call. Palin was in the middle of a gigantic crowd of people at the Iowa State Fair, and her half of the conservation may have been overheard by others. There was no way, amid the press of the throng, that anyone outside that swarm could have been summoned at all, and the idea that Palin would be doing favors for a Politico reporter is ridiculous.
3. Governor Palin wasn’t screaming angrily at Pappas. Again, Palin was in the middle of a crowd, which was quite noisy, and if her voice was loud, it was because she was trying to make herself heard amid the hubub."

Are you going to reconsider your intemperate, angry personal attack on a conservative's character?

We'll see who is in fact the "difficult Diva" in this whole business.

Teflon93| 8.16.11 @ 4:09PM

It seems Quin went well beyond the established facts here.

Sources, please.

Brian72| 8.16.11 @ 3:57PM

Maybe your update should have the headline:

"Quinn Hillyer cheap shots a good conservative."

Just a suggestion.

Teflon93| 8.16.11 @ 4:28PM

That's precisely right.

I like Palin but she's not even running. I am sick to death of the Beltway Punditocracy teeing off on conservatives for misdemeanors while ignoring liberal felonies like Romney's flipflopping on abortion, socialized medicine, and now tax policy. I'll defend ANY conservative so attacked because this is nothing more than yet another attempt to force a RINO down our throats. That will result in Obama's reelection due to a third party challenge and/or depressed conservative turnout.

Quin says he's been fighting the Rockefeller Republicans and the Ivy Leaguers all his life. Okay---then do so NOW. Take Romney, Gingrich and Hunstman to the hoop now---when it counts. We want conservatives in both slots on this ticket.

That means covering Gingrich's many missteps. It means covering Romney's lack of character and how that engenders personal hatred among the other candidates. It means exposing Huntsman for the Obama toadie he is.

Covering someone who isn't even running? Waste. Of. Time.

Why not go bash McCain while you're at it?

Jrd| 8.16.11 @ 4:27PM

Your Palin Derangement Syndrome has been on display for too long. That's what happens when you cry wolf too many times. No one believes you when they should. See how that works.

Wayne | 8.16.11 @ 4:39PM

Sorry Quin, but you are sounding more and more like... Obama. You are unaware that the fingers you are pointing really are pointing to yourself. Let's see, you whined about Bachmann's reaction to the Flake question by Wallace. You whined about the Tea Party not supporting Boehner's dealings with Obama, and you whine about Palin's treatment of another reporter. Now you whine about conservatives not accepting your narrative. Just for a moment sit back and realize, maybe you are wrong.

Carnifex| 8.16.11 @ 6:50PM

Mr. Hillyer, you're just upset that the contempt you heap on candidates who are outside the Ruling Class establishment is now being returned to you.

Controse| 8.16.11 @ 5:16PM

Navel staring never defeated tyranny. Please change to subject to something important Mr. Hillyer.

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.16.11 @ 5:30PM

Thanks to you AS is now in the same class as the RNC; the money I used to send to each will now go to Palin. When you officially apoligise for the photo, or they apologise for you, then and only then will (while not much) I resume my contributions. Find that amusing?

Occam's Tool| 8.16.11 @ 5:50PM

Mike---don't forget Michele!

And asterisk, he's a good guy---his self esteem is earned.

Clint is upset that I stole his ID and Israel firster posted using it. Where is that post? I want to congratulate the guy who did it to the anklebiter.

Occam's Tool| 8.16.11 @ 5:50PM

Mike---don't forget Michele!

And asterisk, he's a good guy---his self esteem is earned.

Clint is upset that I stole his ID and Israel firster posted using it. Where is that post? I want to congratulate the guy who did it to the anklebiter.

Occam's Tool| 8.16.11 @ 5:50PM

Mike---don't forget Michele!

And asterisk, he's a good guy---his self esteem is earned.

Clint is upset that I stole his ID and Israel firster posted using it. Where is that post? I want to congratulate the guy who did it to the anklebiter.

Asterisk| 8.16.11 @ 5:46PM

Go on being "amused" you half-wit, and so impressed with yourself

WL| 8.16.11 @ 10:37PM

Hey Asterisk!! You get the prize for the day!!

"Half-wit" is CLASSIC!! I love it.

Teflon93| 8.16.11 @ 7:30PM

I do take Quin at his word that he is not motivated by elitism here.

But it is odd to see someone with an alleged soft spot for populist conservatism to keep on bashing a populist conservative who's not even running for office at the moment.

It's like beating on Pat Buchanan and saying, "Hey! I'm a paleocon too!" Really? Then kindly prove it by bashing the Rockefeller Republicans instead of Buchanan.

BTW, I'm pretty sure Pat hung up on a reporter or two in his day....

ChuckTX| 8.16.11 @ 7:55PM

Quin Hillyer, your overreaction due to YOU not getting your facts straight were not amusing .

Quin| 8.16.11 @ 9:52PM

My facts were straight. Accurate. And relevant.

WL| 8.16.11 @ 10:29PM

What kind of conservative keeps this garbage up this long?

You wrote your little un-necessary piece about Palin. Alot of us didn't like the way you pick your targets foolishly (in our opinion)...

Yet you keep writing about this garbage...and you are posting more comments than we are...

What is the malfunction here...

Are you going to start calling us Right wing Terrorists too???? Can you not comprehend that we are just folks who are sick and tired of our side attacking the people we like???????????????? (And yes...writing about some stupid incident between Palin and a reporter...at a time like this ...IS attacking) Are you going to stop? or what...

WL| 8.16.11 @ 10:34PM

Let the left be the left...or go be the left with the left. FOLKS...this ignorant crap about "we have to call out our own.." is garbage. It's a boatload of DUNG that needs to go into the ASH HEAP of History. That's why our side always loses...

Because after these TARDS got us nearly WIPED OUT in 2006 and 2008...they are still here....expecting us to lap up their cheese and wine...

Quin...seriously...this brand of conservatism you peddle is what got us Obama isn't it???

Now LEAVE PALIN ALONE...regardless of the facts. Just leave her alone.

AJsDaddie| 8.17.11 @ 1:11AM

Your facts were wrong. Unverified. And incoherent.

New England Patriot| 8.16.11 @ 11:10PM

Quin, I am sure you have read additional accounts by this time, other than what Alex Pappas told you. In light of this, do you still feel everything you relayed to your readers in the lead post regarding this "incident" are completely accurate? Please elucidate!

Kyle Smith| 8.16.11 @ 11:40PM

Quin, I think you should take permanent leave from American Spectator and move next door to the Palins, so that you continue your great detective work on Palin and save us all from her imperfections. Our nation is too fragile for Sarah's toughness. Save us Quin.