Quote Of The Day – Fanatics

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Islam, Palin, Quotes, Religion

“Whatever titles we give these murderers, both deserve our attention. Violence like that is no way to solve a political dispute nor a religious one. And the fanatics on all sides do great disservice when they confuse dissention with rage and death.”
- Sarah Palin on the similarities between the Tiller and Long shootings

Credit where credit is due. Palin calls this one right.

Thoughts?


This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009 and is filed under Islam, Palin, Quotes, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

35 Responses to “Quote Of The Day – Fanatics”

  1. gerryf Says:

    Maybe this was the Sara Palin that John McCain asked to be a running mate instead of the handler-created version we got in August-November?

    I doubt it, of course, but you’re right–credit where credit is due

  2. Agnostick Says:

    Where’s the pod?!?!?

  3. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    If only we were dealing with Muslim fanatic terrorists once every 15 years, like Christian abortion-clinic bombers.

  4. Goldie Says:

    Good for her for calling out both the nut case.

    I think Palin may be far more of a moderate than either the far left or far right can accept.

    “The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.”
    —Dwight D. Eisenhower

  5. Paul Says:

    In this instance I agree with Palin…

  6. Kyle Says:

    I agree. Palin’s moderation is intriguing. I love politicians who are moderate, play both sides of the field, and accomplish nothing. Palin should give her speech writers a big pat on the back.

  7. Simon Says:

    Kyle, I might suggest that it can only be intriguing and surprising to those who believed the caricature of her in the first place. She rose to prominence, attracting a flock of advocates for her nomination as Vice-President, on her strengths as a pragmatic, effective Governor who had personally quite conservative views, but who worked well with others who disagreed and didn’t feel the need to push an ideological agenda when compromise would make more headway for the good of the state. (I realize that some Alaskans may dispute that picture, but that was the perception of her from down here in that March-July period when support for her was building.) The starting point in understanding Palin is to understand that the image created of her by the media was a caricature designed explicitly to destroy her. Go into Lexis and run a search of news on her date-limited to BEFORE she got the nomination, and you’ll get a far more accurate picture.

  8. Jeremy from NJ Says:

    Umm … even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Oh, and Jimmy: I’m pretty sure abortion clinic workers and the men and women that have to visit the clinics worry about the Christian fanatic terrorists every time they have to cross the “picket lines of Christian hate”.

  9. Jeremy from NJ Says:

    Simon:

    The starting point in understanding Palin is to understand that the image created of her by the media was a caricature designed explicitly to destroy her.

    Really sir? Can you provide an extremely long comment (citing specific cases) to back up that claim?

    Good lord, I really didn’t expect a comment like that from you.

  10. Jeremy from NJ Says:

    Simon, I would like to preemptively apologize for the sarcasm. I am quite befuddled.

  11. Simon Says:

    I am quite befuddled.

    Why?

  12. david Says:

    If only Jimmy the Dhimmi could post a comment that didn’t include a completely moronic strawman.

  13. david Says:

    Simon, she has hardly been effective. She has single handedly destroyed the oil business in Alaska. In the 1st quarter this year there were only 4 new wells started in her state, over 400 in Texas. Look a little deeper into her policies. She simply robbed the oil industry to buy off the voters. Buy the way, the mean old liberal media didn’t magically make her unable to answer simple questions.

  14. Jeremy from NJ Says:

    Simon: Because I’ve always regarded you as a thoughtful person. I don’t always agree with you, but I never expected tin foil hat references to the liberal media.

  15. the Word Says:

    Simon-
    Many Alaskans would dispute that view. I worked with several in Alaska state government and none had a kind word for her or her administration.

    She was a darling of the repudiated wing of your party. Most people had no clue of her until she was judged to be sorely wanting and in that rarest of rare situations even by members of the GOP.

    Palin was her own worst enemy with the press. They did worse things to better and more credible candidates than she. (Gore and Dean) The myth of her being qualified but misunderstood doesn’t hold scrutiny. Your belief in her worth makes me question every conclusion that you make because I think your conclusion here is so fundamentally flawed. (And just at a time when I had been considering you very knowledgeable but with a different point of view)

  16. the Word Says:

    and I wish it were just hyperbole. As a friend of mine said, “I try to be reasonable but when I hear someone talking about Sarah Palin being a serious candidate, I just want to scream and shake them.”

    That said I am still pushing Palin/Bachman :-)

  17. michael reynolds Says:

    She’s a ninny. But I’m glad to see that her chaotic staff has actually managed to craft a single rational response to a simple question. That’s progress.

  18. Simon Says:

    # Jeremy from NJ Says:

    Simon: Because I’ve always regarded you as a thoughtful person. I don’t always agree with you, but I never expected tin foil hat references to the liberal media.

    You might want to consider that if I’m generally a thoughtful person and reach a conclusion you disagree with, while it might be an aberration, it might also mean that thoughtful people can so conclude. And if it’s a conclusion you can’t imagine a thoughtful person supporting, perhaps that reflects the limits of your imagination rather than the possible range of thoughtful conclusions. Just a thought.

    In any event, it requires no subtle analysis or tinfoil hattery to note that the media engaged in an immediate and vicious campaign to tear Palin apart. I was there, I read the coverage; res ipsa loquitur.

  19. Agnostick Says:

    So, Simon, you’re blaming the wolves themselves… rather than the person that actually threw her into the wolf pen (McCain)…?

    The media did exactly what any sane person expected them to do. Had Obama chosen a rather inexperienced first-term governor as his running mate, the same tough questions would’ve been asked, the same scrutiny would’ve been employed… only the roles would be reversed, as far as which media outlets would be asking the tough questions, and which outlets might be working the smoke-&-mirrors.

    I read and watched a lot of the coverage, as well… watched all four of the debates, and liveblogged most of ‘em right here on the Donk, along with Justin and others. You simply can’t blame the media for your favorite candidate’s inadequacies.

    The good news is that this might be Stage #1 of one of the biggest political makeovers in history. If Palin keeps her nose to the grindstone, keeps employing folks like the new speech writer that’s apparently coaching her… and most importantly, actually travels to far-off places rather than looking at them through the window of her home… she could be a helluva contender in 2016, or 2020.

    Agnostick
    [email protected]

  20. Jeremy from NJ Says:

    Simon: Nah, I have a pretty healthy imagination. I’m going to have to go with partisan blinders on this one, which – much like the Word – casts a shadow on your other conclusions.

    I was there, I read the coverage; res ipsa loquitur.

    We were all there. The only thing that speaks for itself is the fact that she buckled under the pressure of a Katie Couric interview.

  21. Janniel Says:

    I agree. This is the first time that I’ve felt any real respect for her. I wish she would make it her mission to bring moderation to both sides of this issue.

  22. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    David:

    If only Jimmy the Dhimmi could post a comment that didn’t include a completely moronic strawman.

    Jeremy from NJ just made that argument above when he equated abortion clinic workers to victims of Islamic terrorism. Have a debate with him.

    I guess then, you agree with me that Islamic fanaticism is infinitely more dangerous today than Christian fanaticism. Correct?

  23. the Word Says:

    Jimmy
    Depends on who the victim is. I’m guessing the Tiller family and friends finds them incredibly similar.

  24. Simon Says:

    Agnostick Says:

    So, Simon, you’re blaming the wolves themselves… rather than the person that actually threw her into the wolf pen (McCain)…?

    I’m blaming them for their conduct. Those things that McCain’s staff and that Palin herself did to make it easier for the media to caricature and lynch her are things they will have to carry the blame for. I blame Palin for the unfortunate things she said on-camera; I blame the media for the unfortunate things she was portrayed to say after the footage spent a night in the editing room, and for things like Gibson’s preposterous nonsense.

    The media did exactly what any sane person expected them to do.

    That’s true: any sane person should have expected the media to behave the way they did. The media were in love with Obama, and were desperate to see him elected; the selection of Palin as a running mate reanimated McCain’s campaign and for the first time endangered the media’s anointed candidate. Their desperate campaign to tear down and smear her and her family was entirely predictable, although I admit that I was shocked by how overt, how bald their willingness to become a wing of the Obama campaign was.

    Had Obama chosen a rather inexperienced first-term governor as his running mate, the same tough questions would’ve been asked, the same scrutiny would’ve been employed

    Bullshit. And if there was any doubt that that’s bullshit, one has only to consider the way they handled Biden and his accident-prone mouth.

    I read and watched a lot of the coverage, as well… watched all four of the debates, and liveblogged most of ‘em right here on the Donk, along with Justin and others. You simply can’t blame the media for your favorite candidate’s inadequacies.

    No, but I can blame them for the ludicrously inaccurate public portrait the media painted of her. It’s incredible to me that even after the election, even after it matters, you still can’t bring yourself to admit the truth in front of your face.

  25. Simon Says:

    Jeremy from NJ Says:

    June 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 am

    Simon: Nah, I have a pretty healthy imagination. I’m going to have to go with partisan blinders on this one, which – much like the Word – casts a shadow on your other conclusions.

    That would at least be a consistent view. At any rate, the fact remains that the liberal caricature of Palin is absurd and counterfactual.

    We were all there. The only thing that speaks for itself is the fact that she buckled under the pressure of a Katie Couric interview.

    Let’s see the raw footage.

  26. the Word Says:

    Simon-
    I would agree that on this one your views are absurd and counterfactual. Reminds me of an Oliver Sacks patient,

  27. Simon Says:

    theWord, the facts speak for themselves. You can ignore them if you choose, or you may genuinely be blinkered from seeing them as a result of your personal hostility to her, but the pretense that the media did not set out to destroy Palin is ludicrous to anyone who was paying attention. There is no credible alternative way to account for their behavior last fall. I understand that people have different opinions about whether Palin was any good, and fair enough, but the media’s treatment of her is a matter of record, not of opinion. That material is still available in LexisNexis, and would make a fascinating book for anyone who wanted to write it.

  28. the Word Says:

    Simon-
    If they were indeed facts, most would not have come to the opposite conclusion than you. They are your opinion Nothing more. Republicans have had the view that the press is out to get them for years with the easy conclusion then that every criticism is not valid. This one was. She is an empty dress.

    Explain to me the willing complicity in the smear of Al Gore on statements he NEVER said. Lies repeated ad nauseam by a party with no honor aided and abetted by willing parroting by the press. Or how about Howard Dean? They destroyed him in a few days on no substance whatsoever. The press is lazy and Palin let them just ask a simple question and wait for the disaster to follow.

    You have also still never addressed the believing in witchcraft. STILL.

    I’m against her because she is an insult to the voters and America. Please get her to run though.

  29. michael reynolds Says:

    Simon:

    I suppose one has to admire your loyalty. But in this case your devotion to Ms. Palin undermines your claim to objectivity. The media did not force her to be incapable of answering simple questions. The media didn’t force her to whine about being unable to find anyone to pray with in the McCain campaign. The media didn’t destroy her, she destroyed herself. All it took was a single Katie Couric and she imploded.

    She’s a nothing. A non-entity. An empty dress as The Word says.

    But even if we were to grant your premise that she was destroyed by the media, what does that tell us? That she’s fragile. That she can’t stand up to the kind of pressure Bill Clinton endured, for example. Palin had Couric asking pop quiz questions about what newspapers she read. (Answer: Uuuuummmmm.) Clinton had the entire national media demanding to know what distinguishing marks were on his penis.

    Either way it doesn’t advance her case. Either she’s kind of an idiot (my opinion) or she was rolled by the media (your opinion.)

    But it’s not just the negative, it’s the lack of a positive, so to speak: where are her accomplishments? Where’s her profound thought? Her moving book? Her deep insight? Her anything?

  30. Simon Says:

    Michael,
    I tread carefully because we’ve reclaimed some valued civility lately. In regard to your first paragraph, I agree that she has to be responsible for her own shortcomings, and I certainly acknowledge that my views are colored by my fondness for her. Nevertheless, I find that Couric interview incomprehensible. I think that if we saw the uncut footage, we’d find that it was a bad interview, but not nearly as bad as the edited version would suggest; the section on the Supreme Court makes no sense to me, for example, because I know full well she can talk intelligently about that issue.

    Nor do I agree that if “she was destroyed by the media … she’s fragile.” By “destroyed,” I am speaking in the sense of having been defeated at an election by a negative image created by the media (she herself seems to have come through intact). The comparison to Clinton doesn’t work because Clinton didn’t have to fight an election under that kind of scrutiny.

    Lastly, I couldn’t agree more that she ought to write a book, and have said so. :)

    And for civility’s sake, I leave it at that. :)

  31. michael reynolds Says:

    Fair enough, Simon, and I leave it there as well.

    God, all this maturity . . .

  32. Jeremy from NJ Says:

    You guys are great in your civil maturity.

    I have but one more question for Simon:

    Are you somehow personally involved with Sarah Palin? Are you a relation of hers? Friend? Past lover?

    It’s almost as if your comments in this thread are being written by a different person. You seem angry and illogical. It might be explained by a personal involvement with Ms. Palin.

  33. the Word Says:

    It would be a same sect marriage :-) Sorry I just couldn’t resist

  34. Jeremy from NJ Says:

    Maybe it’s some sort of a Scalia, Simon, Sarah menage a trois?

    This isn’t helping, I’m sorry.

  35. Jeremy from NJ Says:

    Maybe it’s some sort of Scalia, Simon, Sarah menage a trois?

    This isn’t helping, I’m sorry.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: