OMG Juan Williams said a no-no re Palin v Obama

December 26, 2010 | Posted in Miscellany | | 33 Comments ↓

Juan Williams: Palin can’t stand on the same intellectual stage as Obama

Palin, like Williams, is a Fox News contributor. And when Williams was fired by National Public Radio this year after saying he felt nervous when he sees Muslims on an airplane, Palin was among the conservative voices defending him.

At the time, though, Palin acknowledged Williams has rarely been her ally.

–HotAir Headlines

33 comments on “OMG Juan Williams said a no-no re Palin v Obama”

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. and it’s completely untrue that Palin couldn’t get into law school because, on the application, she couldn’t spell lt correctly.
    she got the ‘law’ part perfect, it was just that unAmerican ‘sch’ was the problem.

    audiculous on December 26, 2010 at 10:19 PM

    What?

    lexa on December 26, 2010 at 10:32 PM

    Reply

  2. I confess I still get a very small kick out of reading through the HA comments. Was the main reason I linked the headline item. If you want more, there’s now a Quote of the Day piece, too.

    Reply

  4. @ miguel cervantes:

    miggs, there’s just no parallel to a person that served as governor in a state with the population of a large town… and who ran away as soon as the experience of being governor became ‘hard’ and instead took the easy money.

    Reply

  5. @ fuster:
    The comments at the “Blaze” (Glenn Beck’s operation), I have found, make the HotAir comments seem reserved and rigorously even-handed.

    There’s really no point arguing about it, Mr. Frog. Anyone who can watch Palin speak extemporaneously on any topic and then put it up against Obama and conclude that there was anything even remotely questionable about Williams’ comment is immune to argument.

    Palin now fully embodies the intellectual, cultural, and psychological limitations of the political-ideological movement she represents. Her supporters can try to change the subject, typically through various attacks on Obama – or on the Ivy League, or on intellectualism. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that in adopting her so strongly, stubbornly, and blindly they reinforce the impression that they and what they believe really can be equated with her – and that that’s not a positive for them, short or long term. That now appears to be her purpose. Her magnified image describes the walls of their political asylum.

    Reply

  7. Like when he said ‘doctors uneccesarily amputate limbs for cash, or he misunderstood auto and health insurance, or the ‘Cambridge cop acted
    stupidly, or ‘inflating your tires were the solution to the energy crisis,
    or Iran, was just a small country, not to be worried about, or when he
    prided himself, over the deliberations of whether his grandmother who raised him, should have hip replacement, there are many many examples of him being oblivious, contemptuous, or ignorant, maybe this
    is just a pretense he does for the netroots/Stewart crowd, if so it’s good acting.

    Reply

  8. @ miguel cervantes:
    Though items in your spiel, or your spin on them, could be quibbled with, what does it prove? That Obama is capable of error? That he’s a politician? That there are or were weaknesses in his resume? Grand set of revelations you’ve got there.
    @ fuster:
    As for the armbands, sure there’s a parallel typology, but there was with Obamamania, too, and would be with any charismatic movement. I didn’t personally start finding Obama tolerable until the Obamessiah stuff wore off, but I wouldn’t now have much difficulty picking that creepy projection of a political movement’s aspirations over the Palin image.

    Reply

  9. He misunderstands this country at a fundamental level, one almost can’t fault him for the people that surrounded him for the last twenty five years ago, they had a malign vision of this country, as well.

    Reply

  11. @ miguel cervantes:
    Since CK and Fuster have tired of pointed out the obvious, I’ll step in this once…
    The people surrounding Obama before he was elected had and have a truthful vision of this country. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment happened. You don’t come back from that truth and make nice. Unless of course, you want to be President. Then you leave the people who helped you develop the power of truthfulness (satya in Sanskrit) in the first place and become just another politician.

    Reply

  12. Scott Miller wrote:

    The people surrounding Obama before he was elected had and have a truthful vision of this country.

    Glad you said “a” truthful vision, not “the truth” or something. Like anyone else, they have a partial vision. A president has to place his presidency within the contradictions of the whole, whether by instinct or by analysis, in search of concrete unities that escape particular truths, and that particular truths resist.

    Reply

  13. The Tuskegee experiment was an act of negligence, of the coldly amoral type you seem to prefer, the Guatemalan experiment seems
    to have been another order worse. Now Reverend Wright, one of his mentors, seems to have cribbed the KGB’s dezinformazion pamphlet, alleging AIDS was an engineered organism, maybe from his DGI handlers, something quite different. Frank Marshall Davis, another influence seem to have a real hatred for Churchill, but for Stalin,
    it was political tiger beat, he was kind of Robeson without the artistic vision

    Reply

  15. @ Scott Miller:
    I figgered migs meant me with the coldly amoral part, but it strikes me that referring to the syphilis experiments as merely “amoral” is already a rather amoral judgment, and so rather ironic.

    The 40-year study was controversial for reasons related to ethical standards, primarily because researchers failed to treat patients appropriately after the 1940s validation of penicillin as an effective cure for the disease. Revelation of study failures led to major changes in U.S. law and regulation on the protection of participants in clinical studies. Now studies require informed consent (with exceptions possible for U.S. Federal agencies which can be kept secret by Executive Order[2]), communication of diagnosis, and accurate reporting of test results.[3]

    By 1947 penicillin had become the standard treatment for syphilis. Choices might have included treating all syphilitic subjects and closing the study, or splitting off a control group for testing with penicillin. Instead, the Tuskegee scientists continued the study, withholding penicillin and information about it from the patients. In addition, scientists prevented participants from accessing syphilis treatment programs available to others in the area. The study continued, under numerous supervisors, until 1972, when a leak to the press resulted in its termination. Victims included numerous men who died of syphilis, wives who contracted the disease, and children born with congenital syphilis.[4]

    Continued until 1972 and a leak to the press, infecting men, their wives, and their children! If we can’t call that immoral…

    Reply

  16. I mean, really, migs. Why don’t you try imagining what you would have to say about the experiments if they had been carried out under Castro. Somehow I doubt you’d be excusing them as merely “negligent.”

    Reply

  18. @ Scott Miller:
    Well, I think you’re kinda hotly moral, or at least very warmly moral, at least in how you express yourself. I wouldn’t cop to being “coldly amoral” myself, though I think I may make a greater effort to question moral presumptions as such, and can see how that strikes someone like migs as “coldly amoral.”

    Reply

  19. I’m sure many would want to relegate actual biological weapons research and use, to just accidental instances. In Cuba, the folks
    who ran the “Cuba Project” in Vietnam, were promoted to the top ranks, including the Tourism Ministry, yes the one who tortured
    Benge, Day, Denton and probably McCain, not long ago, a thug
    who worked at the psychiatric facility at Mazorra, was deported
    for coming here under false auspices. The likes of Moore and Penn
    and Chomsky never speak of this

    Reply

  20. Well when you can’t tell the difference between us and the bad guys, holding us equally culpable; I know there’s a lot of that going around;
    One wonders how long Gandhi’s satyagra (sic) would have gone on against the Germans or the Japanese, not long I suspect.

    Reply

  22. @ miguel cervantes:
    No reason to speculate. Just look at the Dali Lama’s behavior in connection with the Chinese occupation of Tibet and you have the right correlation. Once, when the Dali Lama was informed that the Chinese had tortured and killed 250 monks closest to him, he sat with it for several minutes, had his personal emotional reaction to it and then looked up and said, “Let us pray for the Chinese.”

    Reply

  26. she’s pretty damned needy. all the attention and money hasn’t yet seemed to fill the holes.

    maybe if we all send her thought-beams she might go and try to convert the heathen Chinese or something.

    Reply

  29. she doesn’t affect your life, not like the drilling moratorium that is likely
    to send gas prices and that of everything through the roof, or the new EPA rules on carbon, or more ethanol mandates so we can burn more of our food, see aspect # 2. Also if you have insurance, be prepared to lose more of it, as aspects of the bill ‘we had to pass, in order to see what was in it” kicks in.

    Reply

  30. miguel cervantes wrote:

    she doesn’t affect your life,

    So in other words you consider her an irrelevant media figure, just another celebrity. Interesting. But even utterly irrelevant overblown hula hoop personalities can tell us something about the state of things.

    Reply

  31. Look your state voted for the triple cocktail of Brown. Boxer, ‘the other Demon sheep’ and the off shore drilling hypocrite Newsom.
    Trying to invoke Ragnarok or the second coming of Ctluthu.

    Then again Arnold has probably dimmed for a generation, any notion that a unconventional politician can solve any problem in the State of California, until after it descends into the Laurentian Abysss

    Reply
Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*