September 06, 2008

Shocker: L.A. Progressive Writer Who Smeared Palin as a Racist and Sexist is a Life-Long Liberal With a Severe Hatred of Republicans

The LA Progressive post attacking Sarah Palin as a racist and a sexist that has been swallowed unquestioningly by the dimmer lights of the progressive blogosphere is the work of one Charley James.

Who is Charley James?

James is a far left-wing blogger that views radical activist web site Democracy Now! as "one of the few news and public affairs programs delivering real news"... perhaps not that surprising for the kind of person shocked that some damnable Americans in progressive Canada didn't appreciate his "Bush Lied/They Died" tee shirt.

James, who has been blogging at The Political Curmudgeon since June of this year, claims to be an independent investigative journalist, and I have no doubt that he is.

Why, just check out his unimpeachable fact-checking methodology:

To verify what friends were writing, I called the St. Paul Mayor’s Office (615.266.8510) where I was directed to the police (651.291.1111). A PR woman for the cops said I had to talk to the Secret Service (612.348.1800), which refused to answer any questions but asked for the spelling of my name before telling me to call Homeland Security (202.282.8000) where repeated calls were not returned. I tracked down the cell phone number of the St. Paul convention office of the Republican National Committee where the man who answered claimed to have no idea what I was talking about, helpfully suggesting I call the police before suddenly asking how I got the number. Ring around the rosy.

It was like trying to get an answer from Dick Cheney’s office. Translation: The e-mails were accurate.

This stellar journalist uses the long-validated "Olbermann method" of confirmation, where the inability to collect evidence to the contrary proves the worse rumors about your enemies are true.

So by all means, when Charley James writes that Sarah Palin is a racist that hates Eskimos, don't let the fact that she's been married to one for the past 20 years get in the way.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at September 6, 2008 10:35 PM

Are liberals really that intellectually challenged that they will believe any smear? No matter how ridiculous? Are they even capable of being ashamed? If I were that naive I'd be embarrassed.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 7, 2008 11:06 AM

No, they think WE'RE that naive. It's aimed at convincing the people who aren't in their camp.
And no, they are not capable of being ashamed.

Posted by: Trish at September 8, 2008 09:57 AM

You mean it's not the Department of Homeland Security's job to verify or deny rumors about what was said in an Alaskan diner months ago? WTF????

You'd think this would take priority, especially since Gustav only ended up being a Category III.

Posted by: Buzz at September 8, 2008 03:34 PM

Shocker! Your audience proves one point to me. When you don't have anything relevant to say, resort to insults, in addition to your superior attitude about anyone who disagrees with you. Intellectually challenged? Naive? I think not. You people seem to believe everything you hear hook, line, and sinker. How you can possibly believe that the country can stand another four years of failed policy and a war without end is beyond me. McCain has proved himself a hypocrite, with his constant harping on Obama's inexperience and then choosing someone less experienced to be his running mate. And don't even count her "executive" experience as governor of Alaska. She's been there for two years and Alaska has a population smaller than mid-sized cities in the US. Regarding the naive comment, McCain choosing a woman running mate thinking that great numbers of women will vote for him/her because she's a woman, sounds a little naive. Also insulting to the rest of the women who vote based on issues, not emotion or personality. I for one was a strong Hillary supporter, and there is no way in hell I would vote for McCain. On another subject, how intelligent people can believe that abstinence is the best philosophy for sex education (or lack thereof) are hiding your heads in the sand. Not to mention it worked so well for Palin and her family. Like it or not, teenagers are going to have sex. The best possible information should be available to them before they become sexually active. Join the real world. Even if the article mentioned above is total lies, she still has some credibility problems. Need I say "bridge to nowhere"? Or her firing of the man who refused to fire her brother-in-law? Her support of creationism is another problem. Religion of any type should not be taught in public (tax-supported) schools--this should could be covered at home and in the church. Instead of making derogatory remarks about people who don't agree with you, maybe you need to take a look at yourselves!

Posted by: tammy at September 12, 2008 01:18 PM

Thanks for do so much to prove my points, Tammy. Who wants to point out the lies and distortions Tammy regards as truth?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 12, 2008 01:30 PM

Actually, you prove my point. By all means, never listen to another point of view, because you seem to believe you are the only ones who are right! Lies and distortions my a$$! Wake up!!!

Posted by: Tammy at September 12, 2008 06:11 PM