Good morning.
- Rewarding the wrong bunch.
- Viewing polarization and Congress.
- Of Che and Burke.
- Math is beautiful … and if you can’t take the class, this book (The Book of Numbers) might do in a pinch.
- Of tolerance.
- I think this is misleading and is being used dishonestly. A number of banks were forced against their will to take TARP money. They weren’t in distress and didn’t need or want it. Now they’ve paid it back. To not recall that in noting this is dishonest.
- Stories conservatives tell their children to scare them before bedtime.
- In other news, Mr Biden remains clueless, which I gather is his primary function.
- The MSM just noticed?
- Star Trek and Mr Obama.
- Watching Pakistan.
- Evangelism as abuse?
- Morton’s fork.
- Core strength training.
- A stumbling block for recovery.
- A translation project?
- Alas, the next kerfuffle … and this is probably not unrelated. People need thicker skins.
- Ikon and corner.
- A YA book recommended.
I think this is misleading and is being used dishonestly. A number of banks were forced against their will to take TARP money. They weren’t in distress and didn’t need or want it. Now they’ve paid it back. To not recall that in noting this is dishonest.
My impression was that only a few large banks were ‘forced’ to take TARP money for a few reasons. One was to project an air of confidence (“we don’t need the money people, the gov’t asked us to take it as a show of solidarity”, which leads one to take the ‘forced’ idea with a grain of salt) and another was to keep the taking of TARP money itself from contributing to a modern bank run (“Citibank just got $150B, they must be in trouble, better move the corporate accounts out of there”). The more numerous smaller banks who are paying back TARP now probably were not forced to take it but took TARP money because the extent of the crises was unknown and they figured they were safer off with more cash in their vaults than less (the same thinking that caused Ford to ask the gov’t to include it in any auto bailout just in case…). So their paying it back now does indicate a few good things:
1. They feel safe enough to do without the cash since it will probably be tricky to ask for it again once it’s returned.
2. The taxpayers get a bit of interest income.
3. There’s some more funds left if the big players like Citibank need another infusion.
4. This is a positive economic indicator indicating that credit will at least stop shrinking sometime soon.
Thank you for no. 18!
Boonton,
1. In a day when interest rates are historically low, “safe enough to return cash on which you owe interest” is not a “safe” enough to do … it’s likely a thing they did as soon as they were “allowed to do it.”
2. Oh, golly.
3. Oh joy.
4. I don’t think that follows at all, because I think this is just banks that didn’t want it returning that thing not wanted as soon as they were permitted. Calling that a positive indicator is false in that case. You are just denying the point I made to which you are responding without providing any countering data or points. That’s less than useful.
Months ago on TARP and in defense of forcing banks to take the money the main point you made then was that the identity of those who wished to refuse was undisclosed and it was necessary that all big banks be required to participate so that confidence not be lost in the weak banks (the run thing). This is what I’m recalling. And the consequence of being forced to take funds is that you’d not want to bear the interest burden for a moment longer than required. So … if you want to point to the fact that some banks are paying back their loans in this environment is … meaningless unless you are dishonestly reporting it as a positive indicator for the reasons I outlined.
Do you have a list of banks that ‘didn’t want it’? I think we are talking only about one or two big banks at most. The smaller banks were not forced to take TARP as there was no reason for them to do so (being small, their stability does nothing for the markets confidence). Also I’d take the ‘didn’t want it’ with a grain of salt. It wouldn’t be surprising to learn they did in fact want it, but also wanted to make a show of seeming to not care about getting it for the market.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30745687/ lists the banks present when Bush Sec. Paulson ‘forced’ them to take TARP money:
Citi, JP Morgan, Merrill, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, NY Mellon and State Street Bank.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ik0cTziDq25tH6gfk_uVrZl_Sm1QD98NE7EG0 has the ones allowed to return money:
Of them, JP Morgan, Goldman, Mellon and State Street are there in addition 22 smaller banks have already paid back TARP funds.
Citi, Bank of America and Wells Fargo were not approved and remain very weak banks.
The ‘forced to take TARP’ money meme is IMO a borderline myth. Only 8 banks were ‘pressured’ to take the funds and for many of them Paulson was probably simply presenting the reality of the situation. Citi especially was and might still be, on the verge of bankruptcy and massive insolvency. For other banks I suspect some of the protestations were more for show than real.
And the consequence of being forced to take funds is that you’d not want to bear the interest burden for a moment longer than required. So … if you want to point to the fact that some banks are paying back their loans in this environment is … meaningless unless you are dishonestly reporting it as a positive indicator for the reasons I outlined.
Well the thing about paying back debt in a credit crunch is that you need cash to pay off the debt…even if it is high interest debt. Banks are very sensitive to credit crunchs not only because of traditional depositor runs but because by their nature banks tend to borrow short and lend long. As their debt expires they need to be able to turn it over in the markets with fresh debt or have a boatload of cash on hand to retire expiring debt. While the FDIC insurance has made general depositor lead bank runs a thing of the past, there’s still a strong psychological element to bank health. If banks were not feeling comfortable about their cash positions they wouldn’t opt to pay back the TARP money so yes it is a positive indicator. Like it or not TARP seems like it worked and while recovery is slow it is happening and taxpayers will probably get the bulk of the money back with interest.
And I say like it or not because I’m not 100% happy with it working. Periodic massive bailouts does not make for a very elegant or simple economic policy.
Alas, the next kerfuffle … and this is probably not unrelated. People need thicker skins.
I agree Letterman’s joke was tasteless and not proper but in the big scheme of things its a blip. Palin choose to make a public scandal of her older daughter’s lack of morals so it isn’t surprising that she should be subjected to mockery by the ‘jester class’. I don’t think this represents anything like a grand conspiracy to get Palin, rather it’s a dud of a joke told by an entertainer who has to tell twenty or so jokes a night.
What is kind of annoying about this, though, is:
1. The tendancy of the Palinites to demand absolute insane political correctness in regards to Palin. Not only was the joke ‘sexist’ but so was another joke about a ‘slutty stewardess’ outfit….why ‘flight attendants’ are a noble profession who should not be mocked! I know the right wants to have their 1960′s moment but is it really necessary to channel 1970′s Gloria Steinem too?
2. Palinites, lacking any substance, go right to the victimization card whenever possible. Obama communicates class by the amount of stuff he lets slide….remember the ‘the white house won’t be white anymore’ so-called joke by some low level GOPer or the NY Post cartoon whose premise was that an ape wrote the stimulus bill? Obama wisely lets such stuff pass either without comment or if there is a response it comes from other people who are on his side. Palin is quick to man the outrage podium whenever the opportunity arises.
3. The Glass House – Remember when Palin’s daughters bf had a falling out? All in the sudden, all of the supposedly unfair and elitist things that Palin was supposedly victimized with were fair game for her supporters to deploy. The guy was berated as white trash, a freeloader, a loser etc. One Palinite even implied he was a backwoods ‘Delieverance’ type character who slept with his sister.
Boonton,
In the context of my remark “people need thicker skins” your reply makes no sense to me.
You’re assuming that Palin and her supporters just happen to have thin skins and can’t take a joke. I don’t think so. The thin skin is a substitute for substance. Hence the endless plays for the victimization card whenever they get an opening. The shabby treatment of her granddaughter’s father just illustrates the pattern and the insincerity of ‘outrage’ at Letterman.
Boonton,
I think you’re missing the operative principle, possibly due to you personal opinion of those involved.
There’s an in-group/out-of-group language use ethic going on here. A white comedian can’t say “nigger” in his patter because he’s not “in” the group, whereas a black man can. A redneck can get away with redneck jokes where an obviously elite rich white ivy league grad can’t. A white radio hack can’t say “nappy headed ho’s, but a ghetto girl can.
We find self-deprecating humor acceptable but in general today, humor (or lame attempts at the same) is found unacceptable if it is seen to diminish or make fun of the exterior group. My thin-skin remarks is that this is not necessary.
For myself I’d offer that thicker skins all around might serve us better than attempts to brand ourselves or others as victims. That we just recognize that when the President and his coterie laugh when jokes about wishing Mr Limbaugh might die or that Willow Palin get raped or that some collegiate basketball players are “nappy headed” that this is not a statement about the object, i.e., Limbaugh, Ms Palin, or the players but one which gives a message about the participant or the originator, i.e., Letterman, Sykes/Obama, and so on. That we stop using these incidents to flag “victims” and so on, but as insight into the character of those who participate.
Thus for this,
Your interpretation is wrong (because prefer the uncharitable interpretation?). This is “in group” can say things “out of group” cannot.
So your message is that because the Palins are white trash hos they can call their own family members trash but if anyone else does that’s an ‘out group’.
I agree with you that we should have thick enough skins to all join in callin them trash. But I’m not sure how funny it really is.
I do agree with you that the ‘in/out’ group thing belonged to the older racial paradign and doesn’t fit much with the new post or trans-racial consensus that has been growing.
Boonton,
I don’t think Mr Letterman (or you) are in the same “group” culturally as Ms Palin and that his (and your) remarks reflect (paragraph 2) not on them but on you.
I see, the “in/out” is a thing of the past, so racial jokes are fine for everyone?
Consider if Mr Letterman had a similar joke about Mr Obama’s daughters. How would that play in your post or trans-racial (fictional) world?
So premarital sex, out of wedlock births, and a lack of dignity in regards to your family members is a culture now?
If Letterman made similiar jokes about Obama’s daughters I would probably be kind of puzzled. Why imply sexual promiscuity to two girls whose family has no history of such and no indication that they themselves are inclined in that manner? There you would have a case of a joke whose structure would be baffling. Imagine doing a joke about Cheslea Clinton drunk driving versus a joke about Bush’s daughters drunk driving. The latter could be funny since they made a name for themselves getting drunk in public. The former wouldn’t make much sense given that she has no known history of drinking. Or if you find it easier to work with hypotheticals closer to your politics….compare how a fat joke would go down against Ted Kennedy (workable) versus Sarah Palin (puzzling).
I have to disagree that the joke says more about the teller. Palinites have attempted to imply that Letterman must have some lurid sexual interest in Willow which is creepy given he is in his 60′s. But as the above examples indicate, the jokes say more about their targets than the tellers. The joke tells us that the Palins are trashy. Now you may disagree with that just as a person might disagree that Ted Kennedy is fat (he’s probably not all that far off from Americans his age, gender and weight). But whether or not Palin is trashy or Kennedy is fat I’m not learning much about the joker.
Boonton,
From what I’ve been reading the consensus is not that Letterman has “lurid sexual proclivities” but that he is a cad. I haven’t seen opinions (except from you) that it means his claim is correct, i.e., that the Palin’s are “trash”.
When I mean “a joke about Obama’s daughters” I didn’t imply the joke had to be structured exactly the same … but suggested an off-color or inappropriate joke about the President’s daughters would not have been laughed off as meaningless by you or the majority of the left (or right) in the same way.
I think the issue with the Letterman joke was two fold:
1. The target was unfair, her younger daughter has not done anything public.
2. She was very much under age making her essentially still a child so making her the target of adult humor was equally tasteless (granted Letterman and his writers may not have been aware of this and might have confused her with her older daughter). So I didn’t say the joke is meaningless or that it should just be laughed off. In fact, I said at the outset I thought it was “tasteless and not proper” so try again to pin the double standard on me.
It would be difficult therefore to imagine a joke on the Obama’s daughters…especially considering how much less public they are than Palins…that would not likewise suffer from the same two problems. In fact, the only two possibilities that come to mind were Bush’s daughters and their public drunkenness and, I think, Carter had a daughter who was dating while he was in the WH. Clinton’s daughter was relatively low key in the WH, Bush Sr. and Reagan’s kids were grown during the WH years.
Now while to my knowledge no one has gone after Obama’s daughters they have done some pretty tasteless jokes/stunts and as I pointed out Obama *could* have made just a big a deal as Palin out of some of them yet choose to approach it in a more dignified manner.
Also there is a double standard going on here with Palinites. It’s ok for Palin to trot her family issues out when the intention is to pad her political resume (Down Syndrom kid birthed not aborted, preg daughter not having an abortion going to marry the guy etc.) but any attempt to honestly evaluate her example is immediately dismissed as off limits, violating her privacy etc.
Having a potential first daughter having a kid out of wedlock and a bf/husband doing the HS dropout routine is a really horrible example. Perhaps it is better than abortion, but then again I don’t recall many Conservatives patting Murphy Brown on the back for not aborting her child nor do I recall much praise of the black community for its willingness to have children out of wedlock even when many white families would have opted for abortion….
It seems to me you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you keep your family quiet and out of the limelight then they should, of course, be treated respectfully and the attacks on their privacy limited (there is no way in modern society to hold high elected office and for the media to pay absolutely NO attention to your family). On the other hand, if you’re going to use your family as a resume it is fair to be honestly evaluated. How would you feel about Larry King writing a book on how to have a long successful marriage or the Hilton’s writing a book entitled Raising Chaste Young Women in an Age of Decadence? No one’s privacy was violated when someone else, whom Letterman is a long way from of course, said ‘physician heal theyself’.
Humor is often very unfair. Bill Clinton did not choose to put his extramarital affairs in the public spotlight but he was ribbed mercilessly for it. Dan Quayle was indeed the victim of simply having too youngish a look (and the little gaffe at the spelling bee). So I’m not saying humor is always the best way to judge these matters but in the case of the Palinites the injustice is way overhyped.
Boonton,
Well, Mr Obama in the campaign, did refer to his daughters specifically (in the context of one of the getting pregnant) … does that mean jokes about the same are not on the table in your view.
Look, either public figure’s families are on the table or they are not. I think this suggestion that “this use” of a family means they are fair game but “that use” doesn’t especially when “use” is typically interpreted by partisan prejudice. You suggest that Ms Palin can talk about her kids and therefore they are fair game, but that Mr Obama who does as well, his kids aren’t.
My suggestion is that they are in the spotlight … but that taking advantage of that just is basically never reflective on the subject but the one speaking. It demonstrates that the one doing so is morally suspect, in the words of NOW … a cad at best.
1. I’ll point out again that I began by saying I thought Letterman’s joke was distasteful and improper so if I was upset by a hypothetical joke about Obama’s daughters I would not be inconsistent.
2. I pointed out in similiar circumstances, Obama has refrained from the hysterical victimization mongering that Palinites have given themselves too. While his daughters were not attacked, to my knowledge, there have been things that are way out of line that could have been used just as well for a victimizationfest yet such opportunities were passed up.
3. Palin didn’t ‘talk about her kids’ but used her family role specifically as an argument for her election. When her selection as announced, I remember her supporters salivating at the thought that leftists would bash her for being a ‘breeder’ and for not aborting her son.
You can say this is partisan prejudice on my part but I’m aware of NO other politican who has tried a similiar play. While we were aware of the families of notable politicans, I can think of no Republican or Conservative candidate who ever tried to use his or her role as a family member as an argument for their qualifications for office. Regan, Bush I II, McCain, Dole, Gingrich and so on I can’t think of any of them who behaved this way and many of them had a lot more family problems than Palin if this was all just liberals being biased against GOPers.
No, the issue I think is that the right has become more enamoured of the culture war and has decided to up the stakes since the days of Murphy Brown and picking on individual movies or TV programs. Hence Palinites supported their woman not on substance but on style. But this cuts both ways and if you want to make this fair game you can’t just say its fair game only if it helps but not if it ever hurts.
Boonton,
1. Did you support or disagree with the reaction to Mr Imus’ remarks.
2. “here have been things that are way out of line that could have been used “? What? A Fer instance perhaps?
3. Mr Obama and “his supporters” have certainly noted his family situation. You yourself have noted “he hasn’t gotten divorced” as a way of contrast with Mr McCain. This seems directly comparable your allusions as to how Ms Palin used her family situation. Mr Gore (in?)famously kissed his wife at their parties acceptance of his nomination for the 2000 election. Does that mean his family situation is now fodder for the opposition?
But your argument is skewed. You write
Look above. I’m arguing for thicker skins. That we should generically ignore this sort of thing. If Letterman makes “distasteful and improper” remarks, just “kick the dust off your sandals”, change the channel and no remarks are necessary.
1. Did you support or disagree with the reaction to Mr Imus’ remarks.
I thought it was likewise over the top. The initial comment wasn’t very funny and was tasteless but not all that important in the big scheme of things. I’m glad you’ve seen the connection between Palin’s pimping for the victimization card and how an old pro like Al Shaprton does it.
2. “here have been things that are way out of line that could have been used “? What? A Fer instance perhaps?
I thought the ‘how can the white house stay white’ thing could have been taken up big time…especially as it was not done by a comedian or entertainer but by an actual Republican official. In terms of Obama bashing do you really need examples? If Obama supporters wanted to make a huge thing out of a current ‘nappy headed ho’s’ type comment I don’t doubt they would have much trouble finding fodder out there.
3. Mr Obama and “his supporters” have certainly noted his family situation. You yourself have noted “he hasn’t gotten divorced” as a way of contrast with Mr McCain. This seems directly comparable your allusions as to how Ms Palin used her family situation. Mr Gore (in?)famously kissed his wife at their parties acceptance of his nomination for the 2000 election. Does that mean his family situation is now fodder for the opposition?
True and that is a contrast between Obama and McCain just as what appears to be a relatively healthy marriage of George Bush was used as a contrast to the more, shall we say dramatic, marriage of the Clinton’s in the 2000 compaign (‘restore honor to the White house’ was essentially coded language). As I pointed out, it isn’t like political families are invisible. We’ve always been aware of them and to some extent all politicans usually have to at least give the public a bit of an overview of their family (Ed Koch, Mayor of NY is something of an exception that comes to mind). I would say though that Palinites took what usually is at best a secondary or third(ary?) aspect and made it a top one.
Look above. I’m arguing for thicker skins. That we should generically ignore this sort of thing. If Letterman makes “distasteful and improper” remarks, just “kick the dust off your sandals”, change the channel and no remarks are necessary.
And I don’t disagree with you. A comedian who has to give an hour of entertainment 5 nights a week is going to bomb sometimes. If Letterman was going after Palin every night and becoming obsessed with her I could see it becoming more of an issue (in which case the prime response would be mockery and declining ratings) Ignoring it, though, does not serve Palin’s political interests so she and her supporters will not do so.
Boonton,
Huh? This is the first mention of Mr Sharpton … who wasn’t the subject of Mr Imus remarks I believe.
You are vicious. Should I start referring to the “what appears” to be a healthy marriage between the Obamas?
My statement was that Imus’s comment wasn’t funny but that it wasn’t all that important in the big scheme of things. Sharpton, as you may recall, made a big deal about Imus’s comment. The same form appears here. The objection to the initial joke does have some merit. In both Imus’s and Letterman’s case the joke was either borderline or over the line and it’s fair for the target to take some offense. But it becomes clear the ruckus that results is less about a legitimate grievance as it is about exploiting a legit. greivance to milk it to the max. This is what we call playing the victimization card.
You are vicious. Should I start referring to the “what appears” to be a healthy marriage between the Obamas?
I didn’t mean it to be vicious. Unless a marriage is falling apart publically it’s really not possible to tell if its good from a distance. I agree the word ‘appears’ is equally valid to use in terms of the Obama marriage as well as the Bush’s. This is why I don’t like the ‘personal is political’ idea and examining the family life of politicians as if they were running for marriage counselor. From the distance (and that distance is an acceptable zone of privacy that society should give a marriage) both the Obamas and the Bush’s appear to have healthful marriages. What they are internally only they know.
On a side note: I’m not sure it would fair to say anymore that the Clinton’s have an unhealthy marriage. Again from a distance it seems they have a relationship that is/was strong enough to weather Bill’s affairs. While it’s possible the marriage has survivied for totally cynical reasons, it’s also quite possible that together they have a strong relationship that is able to withstand the strains put on it….
Boonton,
Sharpton was in no way connected to the “injured” party, which might be proposed as an important distinction.
What is unclear to me how a person engineers “a ruckus” and how much direct involvement might or can be directly ascribed to Ms Palin.
Technically I think Sharpton went to the Rutger’s players and got himself signed up as their ‘representative’. So even if he wasn’t directly injured he was in the mix. Sorry, in terms of victimization playing Sharpton knows his stuff. But the point of playing the victimization card isn’t whether or not you were injured, it’s exploiting whatever merit might be claimed as a victim.
What is unclear to me how a person engineers “a ruckus”
The thing about victimization is that you don’t have to engineer it. Just wait for something to happen that you can make a big fuss about and then go for it. If you’re someone that is in the public light there almost certainly will be someone, somewhere who will wrong you in some manner. Recall how the card was played with Palin almost immediately when the whining started that some hacker kid cracked her Yahoo mail account? Sure so much the better if the harm is done by someone notable and famous like Letterman or Imus but a victimization whore can even turn anonymous grafetti in a bathroom into martyerdom-fest.
There are rare cases where victimization whores have to engineer their own victimhood. You might recall years ago the late talk show host Morton Downey Jr. made a splash about supposedly being attacked by Neonazis in an airport bathroom. Or you may recall the McCain volunteer who claimed a black person jumped her at an ATM machine and carved a ‘B’ on her cheek (for Barack supposedly). Such antics, though, are usually the sign of an amateur.
Boonton,
Hmm, it sounds like you’re blaming the wrong person. That the “ruckus” is partially brought about by emergent behavior in the media and related feedback loops. Now certain elements are known to elicit an effect and people like Mr Sharpton make their living parasitically striving to elicit this effect. Now you seem to think that Ms Palin works on that principle. But I’m not convinced that is her motivation or method. The secondary point is that the proximate cause of the “ruckus” is not intentional. Sometimes a ruckus arises on stimulus, sometimes it don’t. Some people, quite unintentionally are foci for this effect. However, the real cause of the ruckus is the thin skin and the over-reaction of the media circus feedback circuits which enable and cause the whole shebang.
Hence, the call for thin skins.
You seem to be saying that since people know certain things set off Sharpton, they do things because they want him to go off…therefore the causative agent isn’t Sharpton but those who would ‘bait’ him.
The victimization whore, though, does not attack the universe of all acts equally. For example, Imus’s remark was hardly the only example of racial insensitivity by Imus and not even the only example of racial comments by shock jocks. Sharpton picked it up and ran with it but Imus couldn’t be said to have planned that. Dozens of times before similar comments got no such attention and even after other comments by Imus were attempted to be used by Sharpton but they went nowhere.
You are right the media also plays a part. Without the feedback loop of ‘what does he/she say about this NOW’, the victimizationfest doesn’t get off the ground. Thankfully for Palin, Fox News is only too happy to keep it going with ‘reporting’ it every time Letterman makes an additional Palin comment and following it up with its ‘analysts’. This then allows for Palin to issue another press release in response.
The ideal victimization play involves taking a legitimate grievance and using it to demand much more than is due from it as ‘compensation’. We see this with Palinites who have taken this as a cue to bash Obama and accuse him of being responsible for it and demand that he issue declarations condemning David Letterman. Not so unlike Sharpton’s demands that Imus not only apologize to the girl’s team (legit) but donate to his foundation or cause (not so much so).
You can say this is not Palin’s strategy but what evidence do you have to support that claim? I not only have this victimization play but previous ones including the major theme of her campaign which can be classified as ‘class guilt’….the idea that professionals, the educated, those who live in suburbs or cities should feel guilty for ‘looking down’ on white trash. You may try to claim she is simply motivated by a thin-skinned desire to avoid all ‘nasty talk’ just like some may foolishly believe Sharpton is just a guy who is very sensitive about any racial comments…. We know this is not a viable hypothesis, though, because we see when the shoe is on the other foot, such as her beef with her pseudo-son-in-law, she is more than comfortable with those same tactics being used on her side.
Boonton,
Is not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that a intentional “victim” agent like Sharpton miss more than they hit. They are constantly probing and sometimes a “ruckus” results.
Consider politicians proclivity to use bland denials which backfire. My view is that this isn’t “bad” tactics, but that 9 times of out of 10 that tactic works, which is why they use it. But once in a while the emergent media circus feedback loop kicks in an “notices” and a the denial then turns out to be counterproductive. From the politicians standpoint its a lottery. From the bystanders view it’s incomprehensible.
Similarly your ruckus on the “victimization” issue. There are people who regularly mine this for money, like Mr Sharpton. You think Mrs Palin’s case is similar, while I think she just is a lightning rod, i.e., positioned at a focal point between elements in such a way that yield the ruckus.
I think the proximate cause of the ruckus is in the media circus and its tendency to create and sustain media storms over non-issues.
And btw, it’s not “fox” news. Fox is one outlet and is incapable of sustaining a media storm alone. It is emergent behavior, blogs, media, the talking heads, even private water cooler conversations, and so on all contribute.
cite? Where did Ms Palin call on Obama to censure Letterman?
Where did I say she did?
Boonton,
You wrote:
If by censure you mean restrict speech, your quote does not indicate that I ever accused Palin of such a thing. If by censure you mean criticize, you’ll note I said Palinites.
Boonton,
Yet you blame Mrs Palin for the actions of “Palinites”. Censure means to criticize or condemn via speech. Censor means to silence.
What is a Palinite, btw. How do you identify a person as such?
Basically a Palinite is an Obamaite, but they support Palin rather than Obama. I didn’t say that Palin herself used the victimizationfest to bash Obama. Although I thought it was interesting that she brought Obama into the mix in her statements. Notably referring to him as ”the Candidate Who Must Be Obeyed’ which sets the footstones for her Palinites to build a bridge to connect Obama and Letterman (if Obama must be obeyed, then Lettermen must have been acting with Obama’s blessing, or at least Obama’s at fault for failing to make clear Letterman didn’t have his ‘permission’ for such humor).