Halperin: Everyone Not Named 'Sean Hannity' Is WRONG About Palin


TIME magazine's chief political sociopath Mark Halperin, who is right about most things, in politics, is urging readers of his The Page website to memorize Sean Hannity's interpretation of Sarah Palin's steamy resignation, oh boy. Sean Hannity says not to trust the media! Since such parameters would ostensibly include Mark Halperin, we agree with Sean Hannity. But what non-Hannity conclusions does Halperin include in the latest not-annoying edition of "HALPERIN'S TAKE," not-annoyingly titled "9 Pieces of 'Analysis' About Sarah Palin's Decision That Are Flat-Out Totally Wrong"?

There is *no truth* in any of these amateurish pieces of "analysis," which is in "quotation marks" to depict the "amateurish quality" of the "amateurish and wrong argumentation" at work "here." "Quotation marks."


1. This means she can't run for president in 2012.

2. She would have been a stronger candidate for 2012 if she had stayed in office.

3. Republican primary and caucus voters in 2012 will care if she served out her term or not.

4. This means she is definitely running in 2012.

5. Making the announcement on the Friday of a holiday weekend was really stupid.

6. Until today, Palin was well positioned to run in 2012.

7. Palin made the decision not to run for re-election all of the sudden.

8. Palin's rhetoric about the politics of personal destruction was not heartfelt.

9. Palin's ambition is limited to electoral politics.

Okay, so #8 is the obvious "Boner Moment" we were looking for when we read this list.

Most interesting, though, is #2: "She would have been a stronger candidate for 2012 if she had stayed in office." There is NO TRUTH in this "analysis" at all, and no truth can be weaned from it. This is what Mark Halperin is telling us: it would be "flat-out totally wrong" to even entertain the notion that this lady quitting her elected job halfway in, because it was too difficult, could be detrimental to her run for the United States Presidency in 2012. People who think this should expect Mark Halperin to punch them in the face, for being so stupid.

HALPERIN'S TAKE: 9 Pieces of "Analysis" About Sarah Palin's Decision That Are Flat-Out Totally Wrong [The Page]

Donate with CC
Photo: Desmog Blog

The Washington Post reports the Trump administration is on the verge of forming a panel to reconsider the Pentagon and Intelligence community assessment that climate change poses a serious concern for national security. The idea that climate is a national security concern is hardly crazy -- the Pentagon has been warning about the implications of climate change for national defense since the 1990s, and by 2010, the Defense Department was urging that climate change should be considered a major force of destabilization around the world. Hungry people whose crops have dried up may get violent, you know? Or at least pick up and move elsewhere, where they may not be welcome. Similarly, the CIA in 2008 tried to assess the likely effects of climate change on security through 2030.

Of course, now that President ScienceBrain is in office, that's all in the trash, at least in the Oval Office. And this new effort to set up a "Presidential Committee on Climate Security" through an executive order has the potential to erase considerations of climate from national security planning, because the "president" doesn't believe it, and has surrounded himself with other great intellects who reject science too. And hoo boy, get a load of the guy in charge of the whole shebang: William Happer, a laser expert who worked on Reagan's Star Wars antimissile program and, not surprisingly, is not a climate scientist. Instead, he argues that we need a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, because it's what plants crave.

Keep reading... Show less
Donate with CC

Morning Wonketariat! Here's some of the things we may be talking about today.

Keep reading... Show less
Donate with CC

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc