• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vanity Fair: Sarah Palin the Sound and the Fury

Status
Not open for further replies.

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Sarah Palin the Sound and the Fury | Politics | Vanity Fair

Even as Sarah Palin’s public voice grows louder, she has become increasingly secretive, walling herself off from old friends and associates, and attempting to enforce silence from those around her. Following the former Alaska governor’s road show, the author delves into the surreal new world Palin now inhabits—a place of fear, anger, and illusion, which has swallowed up the engaging, small-town hockey mom and her family—and the sadness she has left in her wake.

Extremely well written piece by a small town Christian who originally set out to write about how the Media gave Sarah a bad rap, but the facts he uncovered demanded that he tell a different story -- that of a mean-spirited vindictive phony who lies in almost a pathological manner.

I know to Sarah fans, this type of story is like Krytonite, but give it a read and get to know the real Sarah Palin.

To appreciate how alien Palin has become in Wasilla, how inscrutable to her own people, you have to wrap your mind around the fact that Sarah Palin is more famous than any other Alaskan, ever, and to remember that mass-media fame is a property of “outside.” It still does not quite seem real to most Alaskans that there are all these thousands of people in the Lower 48 turning out for … Sarah. It seems all the more unreal because Palin’s image as an engaging, down-to-earth small-town hockey mom was more or less accurate until two years ago. To be sure, some elements of that image were never true to life. “This whole hunter thing, for Sarah? That is the biggest fallacy,” says one longtime friend of the family. “That woman has never hunted. The picture of her with the caribou she says she shot? She got out of the R.V. to pose for a picture. She never helps with the fishing either. It’s all a joke.” The friend goes on to recall that when Greta Van Susteren came to the house to interview Palin “[Sarah] cooked moose chili and whatnot. Todd was calling everyone he knew the day before—‘Do you got any moose?’ Desperate.” In any event, her life is very different now: flying by private jet, driving a gleaming new Escalade ESV with tinted windows, and speaking to the whole world via a Fox News feed from her house until the network installs a TV studio on her property, where contractors are now also finishing a 6,000-square-foot stone-clad château that will contain an airplane hangar for Todd’s Piper Cub, two private apartments, and an office for Sarah.

The hunting/fishing thing was the one aspect I did actually believe about her, but finding out it's all bull**** too, I guess I'm not surprised.
 
I wanted to get a better understanding of pathological liar and I came across this:

A Sociopath

A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused - it is done to get one's way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways (see, lovefraud, for more on sociopaths).

Sadly, it fits.
 
In fairness, that's pretty much every politician, especially the ones with leadership aspirations.

That's funny, those were my thoughts right after I posted. Thought I've known a few local and state reps that made politics a part-time gig--they were all about service and not power. Maybe only the sociopaths get to the National Level.

The level of lies and deception in Palins life is disturbing--mostly because so many people see her as something she's not.
 
In fairness, that's pretty much every politician, especially the ones with leadership aspirations.

Exactly. I'm no fan of Sarah, but let's be honest, you got to play the game.

I believe Obama sold his Chrysler 300 for his ford hybrid right before entering the election cause he wanted to seem green for his base. I'm sure there's plenty of other examples for damn near every politician out there.
 
Exactly. I'm no fan of Sarah, but let's be honest, you got to play the game.

I believe Obama sold his Chrysler 300 for his ford hybrid right before entering the election cause he wanted to seem green for his base. I'm sure there's plenty of other examples for damn near every politician out there.

In fairness, molding an image (by trading cars) as compared to outright fabrication of one's personal story (as described in the Vanity Fair piece) are pretty far apart on the sleaze scale.
 
fits who? Sara or the thread starter? :lamo

I didn't write the article. If you have comments about the facts/accounts contained the the article, I'd like to hear them.

Vanity Fair is known for rigorous fact-checking and vetting of pieces that it publishes.

I heard the writer interviewed this morning, and he came off very credible and w/o an agenda.
 
I didn't write the article. If you have comments about the facts/accounts contained the the article, I'd like to hear them.

Vanity Fair is known for rigorous fact-checking and vetting of pieces that it publishes.

I heard the writer interviewed this morning, and he came off very credible and w/o an agenda.



Of course you did, the article meets your preconceived notion about your nemesis. :shrug:


vanity fair is a left wing rag of dubious accuracy, but because its liberal, you believe it unchallenged. :shrug:



http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/09/even-left-wing-amanda-coyne-from-far.html


oops, seems they lied and you bought it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of palin, but it seems there is a core group of mouth foamers here who if not crying about beck, they are attacking Palin. :shrug:

Hrm, we need a new boogieman. HOW ABOUT THE KOCH BROTHERS?
 
the article's author, on MSNBC this morning, appeared to have genuinely reversed his take on palin after compiling the facts
he presented that his intent was to illustrate the unfair reporting to which sarah has been subjected
by reading the article you will see that was not what he found
... and yes, maybe his acting skills are superb
 
Vanity Fair doesn't like sarah palin? I'm shocked!

I didn't write the article. If you have comments about the facts/accounts contained the the article, I'd like to hear them.

Vanity Fair is known for rigorous fact-checking and vetting of pieces that it publishes.

Oh really?

A former aide to the McCain campaign got in touch with me this morning to cop to being the half-serious progenitor of a story which, embellished almost beyond recognition, appears in Vanity Fair's portrait today of Sarah Palin as monster.

Reports Vanity Fair:

Soon after her nomination, she brought up with McCain aides the subject of Bristol’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy by Levi Johnston: “Would it be good for the campaign if they got married before the election?” she asked, and went on to wonder whether one weekend or another would be more advantageous for media coverage.

...

Indeed, the former McCain aide (my source and the Times's) recalls gleefully that while he kicked it around a bit with other aides — as the "end all, be all stunt for a campaign of stunts" — the idea was never brought to Palin, much less seriously considered.

Hear that? Something that VF reported as Sarah Palin herself bringing up was never even mentioned in her presence. VF actually just copied the story from an overseas news outlet without checking it. Great reporting.

But wait, there's more:

Saying anything about Palin, cont'd - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

I generally avoid playing press critic, knowing that I live in a particularly fragile glass house and that good reporters make mistakes.

But the Vanity Fair piece on Sarah Palin is so emblematic of much that's wrong about the way she's covered that it's worth returning to, and I've learned that the its long wind-up is based on fundamental confusion about which of Palin's children was at an event in Kansas City.

The VF article claimed that Palin used her down syndrome son as a prop at a rally, then as soon as she left, she dumped the kid off on a nanny. Here's what actually happened:

The problem: Trig wasn't at the event, according to its organizer, Karladine Graves, a 61-year-old Kansas City physician, who, in 2009, founded one of the wave of new local conservative groups, this one called Preserving American Liberty. The "woman, perhaps a nanny," was the boy's mother, St. Louis talk radio host Gina Loudon, according to Graves.

Graves said she was "disappointed" by the piece, which also paints her organization as a dodgy financial pass-through, rather than what seems to be the reality: It was a small group putting on a big conference with speakers like Palin, J.C. Watts and Fred Thompson and one that continues to put on its regular slate of smaller local events.

Graves also said the reporter never asked her if the boy was Trig and that she never got a call from a Vanity Fair fact checker.

Two separate stories from the article have been affirmatively debunked, each of which would have been caught by the most basic fact checking. For most people, that's a bad thing. For those who get all hot and bothered at the prospect of anything negative about Sarah Palin, it might be forgivable.
 
Last edited:
Of course you did, the article meets your preconceived notion about your nemesis. :shrug:

How would you know?

You didn't read it.

FAIL !!! *** FAIL !!!

BTW -- what did you think of the more flattering parts where writer talked about her ability to connect with individuals? Connect with an audience?

Oops, didn't read it.:3oops::3oops:

:failpail::failpail:
 
Moderator's Warning:
Any more personal banter at each other will result in infractions and thread bans. Stick to the topic at hand.
 
Fair enough, NYC? Ben Smith brings up TWO whole anecdotes--where there MAY be another side to it?

One... Two....

And what else?

Better keep googling...

He points out two major journalistic errors in this "well researched" article. Like I said, that won't matter for some people.
 
I hope she runs for POTUS, that will be fun to see her and Mitt Romney fight each other.
 
He points out two major journalistic errors in this "well researched" article. Like I said, that won't matter for some people.

I'm sorry, but I believe you're incorrect. I read the Ben Smith politico piece and he made some points about two anecdotes that may have been blown out of proportion. Again, that's going by his sources.

The two version of the stories, one less-bad than the other, breaks down to "they said-they said." Palin's handlers have decided to keep reporters away from her, which means people doing pieces on her have to rely on interviews with people that have known her or have worked with her. When several people repeat the same story it's perfectly fine to put it in the piece. I have no doubt everything in the Vanity Fair piece can be backed up by background and sources. But like witnesses to a crime, people may tell extremely different versions of what they saw.

Steve Schmidt's 60 Minutes interview echos what was in the Vanity Fair piece. I'm not how many different people have to come forward and relay what their experience with Palin was like before her admires get a clearer picture what she's like behind the scenes. I would hope that an open-minded reading of the Vanity Fair piece, which touches on the good, the bad, and the ugly, would be helpful.

What I find interesting is that instead of clarifying specific stories and giving her side of things, Palin decided to insult the writer in a vulgar childish way on the Hannity show. Why doesn't she clarify the different stories with her version?
 
I'm sorry, but I believe you're incorrect. I read the Ben Smith politico piece and he made some points about two anecdotes that may have been blown out of proportion. Again, that's going by his sources.

The two version of the stories, one less-bad than the other, breaks down to "they said-they said." Palin's handlers have decided to keep reporters away from her, which means people doing pieces on her have to rely on interviews with people that have known her or have worked with her. When several people repeat the same story it's perfectly fine to put it in the piece. I have no doubt everything in the Vanity Fair piece can be backed up by background and sources. But like witnesses to a crime, people may tell extremely different versions of what they saw.

Steve Schmidt's 60 Minutes interview echos what was in the Vanity Fair piece. I'm not how many different people have to come forward and relay what their experience with Palin was like before her admires get a clearer picture what she's like behind the scenes. I would hope that an open-minded reading of the Vanity Fair piece, which touches on the good, the bad, and the ugly, would be helpful.

What I find interesting is that instead of clarifying specific stories and giving her side of things, Palin decided to insult the writer in a vulgar childish way on the Hannity show. Why doesn't she clarify the different stories with her version?

And like I said, the errors won't matter for some people.
 
And like I said, the errors won't matter for some people.

I don't see what errors you're referring to. -- There's multiple versions of the same story.

And if only two of the anecdotes are in questions, what about the rest of the article?
 
OT but they have lost my respect by having frigging Lindsay Lohan on the cover and I will probably NEVER buy this mag again in my life. :(
 
Sarah Palin the Sound and the Fury | Politics | Vanity Fair



Extremely well written piece by a small town Christian who originally set out to write about how the Media gave Sarah a bad rap, but the facts he uncovered demanded that he tell a different story -- that of a mean-spirited vindictive phony who lies in almost a pathological manner.

I know to Sarah fans, this type of story is like Krytonite, but give it a read and get to know the real Sarah Palin.



The hunting/fishing thing was the one aspect I did actually believe about her, but finding out it's all bull**** too, I guess I'm not surprised.

Giving Beck the day off from your mouthfoaming rants?
 
Here's Palin's reaction to what I assume was the vanity faire piece:

"Those who are impotent and limp and gutless and they go on their anonymous -- sources that are anonymous -- and impotent, limp and gutless reporters take anonymous sources and cite them as being factual references," Palin continued. "It just slays me because it's so absolutely clear what the state of yellow journalism is today that they would take these anonymous sources as fact."

Nice sexual imagery.

And, I thought she was a journalism major???

Does she realize 'Deep Throat' was an anonymous source?? -- people agree to talk to a journalist on the condition of anonymity. And that means they had multiple sources telling similar versions of the same story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom