Sarah Palin blasted national labor leaders in a Thursday interview with Sean Hannity, calling on “union bosses” to “turn down the rhetoric” in Wisconsin, where Republican legislators have repeatedly been threatened and harassed in recent weeks. “Union bosses are acting like thugs,” she said. “They are leading some of their good union members down a road that could result in, unfortunately, somebody getting hurt, if you believe the death threats.”
The Badger State, she added, has become the central front in the country’s fiscal debate. She argued that it has been “strategically picked” by Democrats and their labor allies as a must-win political battle. As the 2012 election cycle approaches, prominent liberals, she predicted, will attempt to use Wisconsin as an opportunity to gin up progressives.
Palin pointed to filmmaker Michael Moore as an example of the Left’s approach. “Michael Moore is a hypocrite,” she said. “Here he is declaring war on the situation. It’s trying to get people to believe that what [Republican governor] Scott Walker has succeeded in doing, in trying to get their state to rein in government and live within their means, that that is somehow ‘declaring war’ on the working class. Look at Michael Moore in his own profession, choosing not to use union workers as crew members on his films. That’s hypocritical.”
Yeah, that'll work. Good thinkin' Palin.
Somewhere in Pennsylvania an arsonist is missing his matches and gasoline.
If you want to make a statement, get in your car, drive to Madison, and stand on the capitol steps with a bullhorn. That's what conservatives want to see...their "leaders" go down there and confronting these goons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTHe Sean Hannity show is a plenty big bullhorn. I am fine with Palin's strategy for now.
Also, I am delighted that the leftist thugs are continuing to talk, threaten and dig their own holes. The more they rant, the more they attract attention to themselves. That ain't a good thing. For them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePalin isn't a credible voice when it comes to asking people to tone down inflammatory rhetoric. Those who lover her and those who hate her do so for the exact same reason, she is a combative bomb thrower who blasts her opponents in the harshest most insulting terms possible. After weeks of saying that people shouldn't take heated rhetoric in the political arena literally and that it's un-American to ask people to curb their angry language when talking about political leaders, this comes off as nakedly hypocritical.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI bet Palin is "man" enough to go to Madison with a bullhorn and repeat her message. I bet she wouldn't be alone as well. I bet the Union could bus in whoever they wanted and they would be out numbered. I also bet those with her would act like humans and not animals, and their message would be very well received by the Nation as opposed to that of the Union.
Anyone want to bet?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>she is a combative bomb thrower who blasts her opponents in the harshest most insulting terms possible.
Hardly. You've apparently adopted the leftist approach of 'just say anything' with no shame, holding to no standard.
What Palin is doing in these comments directed at the union leaders is *putting a spotlight on the real agitators* and in the process belittling them by talking down to them like a mother telling children to behave.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOkay Caroline, I get it, you like Palin and don't like it when people criticize her, and I will happily concede that I overstated how harsh she is. It is in fact possible to be more harshly insulting than Palin is to people she doesn't like (but not without profanity). But come on, are you really going to pretend that she doesn't use violent metaphors and rile up her supporters with red meat? That's her whole thing, people like her because she says angry and inflammatory things about people they hate. After the Giffords shooting she forcefully made the point that speaking angrily and using harsh metaphors in the political arena is a fair practice and should not make people liable for violence perpetrated or threatened by others. She called people's criticism of her un-American and decried their attempt to stifle her freedom of speech. For her to turn around and do the exact same thing is hypocritical. I'm sorry, it just is, even if you don't like the people she's criticizing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter the Giffords shooting she forcefully made the point that speaking angrily and using harsh metaphors in the political arena is a fair practice and should not ....
Please don't waste the discerning readers of National Review's time with your lies. We are not ill-informed lefties here.
We all read or heard Palin's defensive speech, prompted by the clear 'blood libel' - yes I said blood libel of the days following Gifford's shooting.
Speaking of civility in discourse, I am sure you join me in condemning those who made explicit death threats to duly elected legislators in Wisconsin.
'Violent metaphors' ... after this week in Wisconsin I won't take that kind of verbal nightsoil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePalin hardly comes off "like a mother telling her children to behave" considering her mothering skills are proven as less than stellar since she had no effect on educating her own daughter about responsible sex. More likely she's the crazy lady on the bus who occupies 4 seats and then whines 20 feet later about everyone else's inablility to sit. She is the epitome of hypocrisy in this case and while Michael Moore may have done a lot of questionable things, at least he never quit a film halfway through and then abandoned everyone who helped him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRJG, please, take a deep breath! You don't like Palin - we got that. But the hyperventilating isn't really necessary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhich violent metaphors? War Room? Battleground State? Fight our way to victory? Take back our country? They bring a knife, we'll bring a gun? Enemies? Districts to target in the next election?
Which of those are violent?
Or how about:
Hitler. Nazi. Dictator.
Are those?
Sorry to ask such silly questions, but I really can't keep this straight. I'm hoping our good friend RJG can help me out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseC'mon Mr. Costa, might as well double-down on the irony: "Palin to Union Thugs: 'Turn Down the Rhetoric"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor whatever it's worth, I have been completely calm when writing these comments. Whatever hyperventilation you have detected is completely created by you. I suspect that you have probably reached the point where you can't read any criticism of Palin without hearing it in an angry, shouty, tone, but that's not where I'm coming from. If we were face to face and you heard me saying the words I wrote, I would not sound the way that you imagine I sound. It's easy to discredit someone when you write them off as over reactionary and emotional, but just as a thought experiment, re-read what I wrote without imagining the psycho-Sarah hater voice you made up for me, and then tell me what in my comments is factually incorrect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@LivingTheHighLife
Sorry, I missed your second comment before I posted mine. I also think you misunderstand where I'm coming from here. I actually don't believe there's anything wrong with using metaphorically violent imagery in political speech (and by the way, most of the examples you gave are actually metaphorically violent). I just think that Palin is not a credible voice for moderation, she is inflamatory. Call a spade a spade, that's why she's popular with the people eho like her.
And Dictator, Hitler, and Nazi? These are not the argument winning examples you seem to imagine them to be. I have heard Palin or those whose speech she has directly endorsed (see Glenn Beck) say all of those things about the people they disagree with.
What I maybe should have just said to begin with is that I find it irritating when politicians point at the other side and cry about behavior they find totally unobjectionable when they (or people they like) do it. It's dispiriting, and it makes it hard for me to take those people seriously.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI admire Sarah Palin's courageous willingness to take a stand on contentious issues, and her good judgment in choosing which issues to speak out on.
She will make a great President, and will actually change the entire political demographic in the country for the better, for when she is elected, many liberal heads will spontaneously explode.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm happy that Palin spoke out about the thuggish behavior of the unions. Somebody needed to say it. Somebody also needs to speak out about Obama's role in organizing the demonstrations.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePalin's husband was in a union for many years, back in the day when he was the family breadwinner. But she is certainly not a hypocrite for blasting the behavior of the unions now. Michael Moore, who at one time hired non-union labor, but now supports unions, really is a hypocrite though.
Source - "New frontier in campaign spouses
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCAMPAIGN '08: RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
Alaska's 'first dude' Todd Palin is a moose hunter, snowmobile racer, oil worker, union man and hockey dad", Los Angeles Times, 9/7/08
Palin is speaking out as I am to anyone who will listen against the violent rhetoric from the Left. But NRO commenters from the left want to talk about her mothering skills or her supposed out of bounds political rhetoric in the past. Show me.
Meanwhile Jay Carney relays the President's thoughts..."Failure to come together"??? How about a simple reaffirmation of republican democratic processes free of violent threats as guaranteed by the Constitution? Obama fails again!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen Palin uses violent rhetoric, it is intended to be understood figuratively. When Richard Trumka or Jesse Jackson use violent rhetoric, are you sure it's not to be taken literally?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRJG: Disagreeing with a liberal is now "bomb throwing"? Now that the left is done with them, words no longer have any meaning left.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"As the 2012 election cycle approaches, prominent liberals, she predicted, will attempt to use Wisconsin as an opportunity to gin up progressives."
As she, a prominent conservative, is using Wisconsin as an opportunity to gin up conservatives. She's got so much going for her - looks, chutzpah - if only she had a brain ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse