Her red meat punditry and message of hope (no abortions, adopt-a-stem-cell-this-week, global-warming-is-a-hoax-spawned-by Satan, and God-created-the-earth-in-6-days-or-else, motherfucker!) was excitedly summed up by Rush Limbaugh last summer: "Sarah Palin, babies, guns, Jesus. Hot damn!"
She won’t have a regular show, according to The Times source, but she will host an occasional series not unlike one by Oliver North.
Palin is a muscular get for Fox News, whose old, white male demographics are pretty much the same as Palin’s. One poll of men over 60 years old reported that nearly 70% of those who'd vote for her for president, would definitely have sex with her if the opportunity arose (so to speak), and half of them believe that was likely. With Boomer Generation numbers like that, Palin has at least a 15-year public run ahead of her. (For you women, people of color, and the aged 18-55, don't scoff: this is the crowd who re-elected George W. Bush)
Conservatives always say that the liberal media are scared of Palin: we gotta say, our fear is that she'll not run for president and instead take her money and run. (The very thought of her shunning publicity, we know, is paranoid, and about as likely as her having sex with any of those old men who love her so much). We don't want to have sex with her (no matter how hard she pleads) but we do love having her and her soap operatic life in front of the cameras... and now that she's to be in the mainstream media, we're hoping to see even more of her.
When she quits this job, like she has so many times before, how much will she have to pay to buy herself an early-out on her contract? And will the GOP pay for that, like they did for her shopping sprees to Sak's? She'll be required to quit anyway when she runs, unless Murdoch wants another GOP scandal attached to his "entertainment" channel.
Posted by: Drew | January 11, 2010 at 02:43 PM
I'm very pleased to see Ms Palin doing so well. She has obviously made a mint on her book and now she will undoubtedly get paid well for this Fox gig. With her rather large family they need all the financial help they get. This will likely assure that her husband won't have to go back to the North Slope and that he can focus on being the home husband that their family obviously needs.
Now, if Crystal can get a clean break divorce from the Hollywood wannabee boy-friend of her's they can go about their lives. I doubt that Sarah will ever again run for political office. You go girl!
Posted by: Duffman | January 11, 2010 at 02:54 PM
Our platform is one of the best political documents that's been written in the last 25 years," Steele told Hannity. "Honest injun on that." You betcha.
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2010 at 03:11 PM
Another brilliant move by Roger Ailes. Just when you wonder how FNC will continue its phenomenal growth, he pulls this rabbit out of his hat.
Having Palin on FNC on a regular basis is just going to draw in more viewers. It will cost MSNBC and CNN some more viewers.
It will, as well, will be fun to watch all of you liberal haters peeing all over your selves trying to come up with new ways to insult normal working folks that relate to and love that woman. Better will be seeing the independent thinkers (and voters) discover that she really is an intelligent woman with good ideas for our country.
Some come on libs, spit your venom, squirt your puss, distribute your spittle. This is your day.
Posted by: chucks going to Drew, Andrew & Coilers tea party | January 11, 2010 at 03:18 PM
Both the left and the right should be happy, Sarah Palin has a found a home where she belongs. That's not intended to be a compliment or insult, but if she aspires to the Presidency, that would be megalomania. Did you guys see Steve Schmidt's comment that McCain picking her was part of "God's Plan??" Is that scary or is that SCARY?? The choice of Palin as his running mate, coupled with temporarily suspending his campaign after Lehman Bros. collapsed makes John McCain perhaps the most tone deaf politicians EVER, who's totally deficient in common sense.
Posted by: Jason Andersen | January 11, 2010 at 03:29 PM
FOX, "the honest injun" network
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2010 at 03:39 PM
Ummm, pretty sure that MSNBC and CNN are not going to lose any viewers with Palin now on the Official Network of the GOP. If America could ever possibly take her seriously, maybe. But not for many years. She's totally ignorant on foreign policy issues and government budgets, and even proved that she can't read. After a week of coaching by her party, she still couldn't grasp why there are 2 Korea's, and her handlers in the McCain camp were ready to give up on her. I don't even want to contemplate what a totally fucked up country we would be living in if Palin had won (and let's be clear here- that would have made it 12 years of this country being run by it's vice president)
Posted by: Drew | January 11, 2010 at 04:13 PM
Unless you mean that CNN and MSNBC viewers will be swayed to see Palin on FNC because of "SNL-for-real" type laughs, if you will, then your assertion doesn't make sense to me. Palin is just so ridiculous! She said that McCain picking her was all part of "God's Plan!" So, Sarah, now reverting back to the good old SNL church lady, the fact that you and McCain lost in landslide must be cuz of SATAAAAN!!! :-)
Posted by: Jason Andersen | January 11, 2010 at 04:26 PM
Hahahaha...VG, Jason! And if the viewers you mentioned above want to catch Palin in another of her dorkified gaffes, they can just tune into SNL, because you know that Tina Fey can watch Fixed for us to get some choice material. Besides, why would an educated and rational American patriot that also enjoys great satire ever want to watch 55 minutes of Fear and Hate News, just to watch 5 minutes of Palin saying something stupid?
Posted by: Drew | January 11, 2010 at 04:49 PM
a new book is out that reveals the absolute stupidity of Palin. McCains people had to prep her about the world wars , the Korean situation , and Saddam Hussein (she thought he was responsible for 911 an dhad no idea of why her son was going to Iraq) . Absolute blithering, asinine idiot.
Posted by: Tommy008 | January 11, 2010 at 05:40 PM
So many people on here are pathetic morons like Drew. With Obama mirroring the moves of Hugo Chavez, there is plenty to be fearfull about. If he had his way he would shut down Fox like Chavez has done in his communist country. As for hate, that is far more prevalent on the Marxist side than on the common sense side like FOX. No, Palin is no foreign policy expert, but compared to the bumbling bowing fool Obama has become, she would do far less damage than has he. The world laughs at him behind his back and rightfully so. Much as I laugh at those like Drew here.
Posted by: Paul Johnson | January 11, 2010 at 06:44 PM
McCaini's campaign was operated by blithering idiots by the way they selected her and later handled Sarah Palin in the campaign.
I am fairly sure that Palin's quotes were out of context in the book. I would trust Palin's take over the stuff in the book. The Clintons rejected what was written about them, of course it was the Clintons - make your own judgment.
Halperin masks himself as a objective reporter, but is really an opportunist hack who seems lackingt on verifying his claims.
Palin won't have her own show, but will be a regular guest on one of the shows. I can see the Pavlovian dogs salivating over at MSNBC - including Butch Maddow. "Honest Injun" by Michael Steele was a stupid remark - not impressed by him.
Posted by: KS checking on Statist Teabaggers w/ Drew, Joanie, Sparky | January 11, 2010 at 06:50 PM
Our modern-day Joseph McCarthy, Mann Coulter often says that if you go overseas and say disrespectful things about America, that's treason, She said exactly nothing about Sarah Palin's anti-American comments in China, but displayed her total ignorance for diplomatic protocol in her comments toward our President, whose actions were only criticised by our extreme right wingnuts like yourself. People who actually know about protocol etiqutte say Obama performed appropriately.
I liked your comments about Chavez, whom you clearly know nothing about. Since when has Obama raised an export tax on ExxonMobil, as Chavez did to fund housing and food programs for the wretchedly poor in his country? Has Obama mandated that private land not in use for over 2 years be farmed to help keep this country's food supply independent? Has Obama ever offered below wholesale heating oil to New York City's poor tenement dwellers during the bitter cold winter of 2007, when Bush allowed the price of fuel to go through the roof? And most importantly, has Clusterfux News ever labeled Obama as the leader of a terrorist nation?
On Fixed, they laugh, on cue. All around the world though, people look at Obama with respect and admiration, and feel that his election shows that there is hope for this country.
Posted by: Drew | January 11, 2010 at 07:03 PM
Now the McCain campaign is to blame, not the players. That is lame. Well partly, they listened to Kristol who told them to pick Quaylin. Otherwise, most sane GOPer's stayed home or voted for our President. They really did, truthseekers!
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2010 at 07:24 PM
Its amusing that you think by just saying people admire Obama that its true! Says who? The blithering idiot who can't balanced the books at a hot dog stand is an abject failure and his poll numbers bear that out. Chairman Chavez has threatened to take over in business no matter what size if they don't hold prices down by his order. He has directed his state militia to enforce this. He has nationalized the oil and banking industry and now controls the media as well. Lets see, the Obama regime has in effect done the same to many banks here, most auto companies, which Chavez would do if he had one, and has said FOX news is not a viable news outlet but only an entertainment network. He would shut them up if he could, but the Marxists in this country don't have that much control yet. Take from those with ability and give it to those with needs. Thats the socialist way. Give to those who don't earn it. Thats just a brief example of how they share the same philosophy. It would seem I know more about Venezuela and Chavez that you think. Lo siento mucho, pero yo puedo leer y escribir Espanol. Tu haces el tonto.
Posted by: Paul Johnson | January 11, 2010 at 07:28 PM
Can't disagree there, curley. They voted across party lines and many of them regret now how they made a bad judgment and were duped by the hollow silver-tongued devil with the teleprompter. They won't make that mistake again in 2012 !
Who selected Palin ? I believe that it was the McCain campaign.
Posted by: KS checking on Statist Teabaggers w/ Drew, Coiler, Joanie, Sparky | January 11, 2010 at 07:30 PM
Were they duped by Bill Kristol? C'Mon KS, admit it. Your side has shit for brains when it came to running what should of been a red state issue of beating the first black president. Why blame it on the winner, Klueless?
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2010 at 07:44 PM
No, God selected her. Sarah said so.
And since you all believe everything she says, then there should be no argument that she is God's choice.
Posted by: sparky | January 11, 2010 at 08:00 PM
Well Thank You Cheeses! For a moment there, I was really worried that it was the Greed Over People party who made that idiotic choice.
Posted by: Drew | January 11, 2010 at 08:04 PM
And KS, you are using Statist incorrectly.
Posted by: sparky | January 11, 2010 at 08:06 PM
WTF Sparkles ? Kristol is a neo-con - I disown both candidates in 2008. He is a hollow, silver tongued devil with a telepompter and is an economic retard, and a statist at heart.
Blame what on the winner ? A number of Republican voters crossed over and voted for Obamy because primarily Bush fatigue and the economy going to hell - very doubtful if that will happen in 2012 because Palin won't be the GOP candidate then. It's as simple as that and no need to play the race card. It doesn't matter what ethnicity the President is as long as he is American. You want to call me a birther now ?
Take a deep breath.
Posted by: KS checking on Statist Teabaggers w/ Drew, Coiler, Joanie, Sparky | January 11, 2010 at 08:18 PM
WTF - Coils and Sparky in the last post.
I am not using statist incorrectly. I know where it fits, even if you don't like it.
Posted by: KS checking on Statist Teabaggers w/ Drew, Coiler, Joanie, Sparky | January 11, 2010 at 08:22 PM
KS. Women by and large voted against Palin. They voted against her because she might embarrass women.
The fact of the matter is once a female decides it's over with another female, it's like an end-stage marriage. No matter how seemingly benign, every attribute becomes an affront: the hair, the voice, the husband, the moose-shooting, the glasses, the big family, the making rape victims pay for their own rape test kits.
Not cool.
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2010 at 08:25 PM
I never said anything about your use, KSPutzSteven
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2010 at 08:30 PM
Not smart to deny God's plan, KS.
You are obviously acknowledging only the pieces of "statist" that fit your mindset. The complete definition would not fit.
Posted by: sparky | January 11, 2010 at 08:31 PM
Curley, who gives a shit who voted against Palin ? she's not going to be the POTUS nominee in 2012.
Besides, your facts are twisted and wrong - try reading less of Media Matters and you might sound a little intelligent for a change.
You, Sparkles and Drew are obviously obsessed with Palin along with the rest of the progressive/regressives. Huckabee is more popular than her and I don't see him being the nominee either.
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2010 at 08:35 PM
if KS says it is so, who are we to argue???
Posted by: sparky | January 11, 2010 at 08:38 PM
Time magazine said she was a loser, not MM. You brought it up that it was Obama that did in Palin when it was, Her. But I guess TIME is part of the Statist media. I'm not obsessed, just enjoying what a spectacle we've had since Quayle, Ya know?
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2010 at 08:39 PM
Just for sparkles - the unabridged definition of statism and statist.
stat·ism (sttzm)
n.
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
statist adj. & n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
statist [ˈsteɪtɪst]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an advocate of statism
2. (Mathematics & Measurements / Statistics) a less common name for a statistician
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) Archaic a politician or statesman
adj
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) of, characteristic of, advocating, or relating to statism
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Seems a lot like what the White House and Congress is doing. In conclusion, if you are not in favor of most of this, then you would not be a statist. Conversely---(you can fill in the blanks)
Buh-bye.
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2010 at 08:46 PM
Yes, this from the party of Bill Bennett (abort black babies to reduce crime) Where was the flying monkey right when he was advocating abortion?
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2010 at 08:47 PM
oh my goodness, whats next, a 12" ruler stating the responsibilities of elected officials from the American Opinion bookstore?
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2010 at 08:53 PM
"(abort black babies to reduce crime) Where was the flying monkey right when he was advocating abortion?"
Source please ? Media Matters and Daily KOS don't count, Curley. I believe that claptrap when monkeys fly out your butt.
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2010 at 09:13 PM
That is only one small part of the definition. As I said, you picked out the part that met your needs.
Posted by: sparky | January 11, 2010 at 09:14 PM
FYI - False. That definition did not come from a political party. Try the American Heritage Dictionary.
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2010 at 09:16 PM
"That is only one small part of the definition. As I said, you picked out the part that met your needs."
False, It was the entire definition printed on that website - nice theory though. One that only fits your needs. You can run but you can't hide....
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2010 at 09:20 PM
Why does Wm Bennett gamble (lost 8 million in casinos in the last decade, but that's another story) with remarks like the crime rate going down if black babies were aborted?
"I'm not even going to comment on something that disgusting," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "Really, I'm thinking of my black grandchild and I'm going to hold (off)."
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2010 at 09:30 PM
...
Some come on libs, spit your venom, squirt your puss, distribute your spittle. This is your day.
You stole our thunder, chunks. How can anyone squirt puss or distribute spittle any better than you just did?
I am fairly sure that Palin's quotes were out of context in the book.
"fairly sure? but not "real" sure? Why don't you check further so you can be "real" sure. Always nice to know what you're talking about, klueless.
Right-wing-tasia: the place where guesses are facts and truth is fairy dust disappearing on the wind. And white men over sixty will vote for any woman under fifty they'd like to fuck. Cuz we all know where their brains are located.
Thank Allah you'll all be dead one of these days. And the few ashes from your miniscule brains will be sitting in teeny weeny vials on the mantles of lonely old women. For whom you were really good for one thing only anyway.
I imagine a few people will go over to fixed news to get a look at their newest freak. But like most one-note wonders, she'll get old and thinking people will return to MSNBC or the myriad of other normal, intelligent, news-analysis sources they've come to trust. That's what normal people do.
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2010 at 09:47 PM
geez, and here I thought chunks was the most mis-informed neanderthal around here ... but KluelesS has just brought idiocy up to a new level... are ya thinking stupidity's a medal sport in Vancouver next month or something? seems like you've been training real hard!
are you seriously denying that bill bennett was not the author of that racist quote?
good imaginary friend almighty!
Posted by: KluelesS, chunks & PutzS = tres assholes | January 12, 2010 at 01:38 AM
wow..SPOT ON joanie and tres...leaving for work laughing!
KS,keep that death grip on your dictionary. Please do not look at sites favored by acutal statists!
Posted by: sparky | January 12, 2010 at 05:38 AM
"are you seriously denying that bill bennett was not the author of that racist quote?
good imaginary friend almighty!
Posted by: KluelesS, chunks & PutzS = tres assholes |
Why are you a racist libtard ?
Posted by: KS | January 12, 2010 at 09:26 AM
She is perfect for "Fake News", enough said.
Posted by: Preston | January 12, 2010 at 09:27 AM
Yawn...
Sparkles, you have no argument so far. Keep grasping at straws like the rest of your cabal. Grow up and face the truth.
Posted by: KS | January 12, 2010 at 09:32 AM
Here's your quote, and I'm your source...I was listening that morning and heard it just like this:
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Posted by: Bill | January 12, 2010 at 01:16 PM
Forgot to add...it was Sept. 28th, 2008.
Posted by: Bill | January 12, 2010 at 01:21 PM
Appreciate the full quote, rather than the purposely parsed version most likely by a leftwing smear site. Curley, the race baiter thought others were stupid enough to believe their version.
Posted by: KS | January 12, 2010 at 02:08 PM
"but your crime rate would go down...." it's racist no matter how Bennett tries to gloss over it. Admit it Klueless.
Posted by: Coiler | January 12, 2010 at 02:46 PM
an attempt to turn off italics.
Posted by: Admin | January 12, 2010 at 02:49 PM
apparently a failed attempt
Posted by: Admin | January 12, 2010 at 02:50 PM
Racism- just one of the many offerings of your Republican Party.
Posted by: Drew | January 12, 2010 at 03:11 PM
"but your crime rate would go down...."
Big f'in deal. Curley turd & Drew - I admit that you are race baiters.
Statism - one of major offerings of today's Democrat Party.
Posted by: KS | January 12, 2010 at 03:23 PM