Thursday, November 19, 2009

Gutless Palin bars media from College of the Ozarks appearance

I am sure this post will bring out the legions of Sarah Palin acolytes who believe the Alaska governor can do no wrong, but the agreement between Mrs. Palin and College of the Ozarks to bar the media from her Dec. 2 speech is indefensible and shows that for all of her legendary "mavericky" tendencies, she is simply a politician who plays too fast and loose with the truth (when she has any idea what that truth is).

College of the Ozarks is a private institution and has every right to bar whomever it wishes from its premises, but For Mrs. Palin to set such guidelines is a clear sign that she is still unable to cope with the media, so she takes the next best approach- demonizing it to try to cover all of her shortcomings.

It would be nice if Mrs. Palin relented and agreed to let reporters cover the event, but that would require Mrs. Palin to admit she was wrong about something and that day will probably never come.


Anonymous said...

Why do you insist that she fights using the other side's rules?

"The media" are her sworn enemy. Why should she do anything to accommodate them?

Anonymous said...

Actually, it's more this: if her own supporters demanded that she face questions from the media, she would. But they don't demand that (it being the evil librul media and all), so why bother? Besides, she faces hard questions from Hannity and Beck all the time.

Anonymous said...

She is no different than Bush who handpicked his audience and never let anyone near him that might question him.

Anonymous said...

Your blog just all all credibility. I thought a "news" blog was supposed to be impartial?

Busplunge said...

Palin's audience is conservative voters.

She appeals to this crowd.

But without serious press scrutiny she will never reach a more mainstream audience.

"The key to making a political comeback is to have somewhere to come back from -- and somewhere to return to. Sarah Palin can't make a comeback because she didn't go anywhere. Not up, not down. Not sideways. Aside from a brief and totally artificial post selection bounce last year, Palin remains a fixed political commodity," - Marc Ambinder, CBS.

Anonymous said...

May I remind you all that Al Gore never ever ever allows media at his events. EVER.

Busplunge said...

Anon 6:39 am

documentation please.

Anonymous said...

As difficult as it is these days, I am attempting to ignore Palin. I don't think she get's the attention she deserves, LOL.

Anonymous said...

You say that she is gutless, afraid of dealing with media, so how do you reconcile the fact that she agreed to address all of Oprah's questions on national television and smoothly handled an hour-long interview with the media giant?

Anonymous said...

This is funny coming from the side that is afraid to appear on Fox news

Anonymous said...

Al Gore & press ban article:,2817,2343551,00.asp

Anonymous said...

I seem to remember something about Biden (as an elected official) and unions...hmmmmm.

March, 2009

Vice President Joe Biden's office said Thursday it is honoring the wishes of the union to not have the press attend, which the AFL-CIO acknowledged after previously telling FOX News it was the vice president's decision..

So much for transparency, but who's messing with Joe?

Anonymous said...

I'd search the site to see if Randy did write about Biden and the union, but Randy doesn't offer the blogger plugin (at least that I could find) to allow such a search.

Anonymous said...

Here's another Gore bans media article:

Anonymous said...

And here's another Gore media blackout:

Anonymous said...

How about here where Gore places gag rules on journalism students he was teaching part-time:

Anonymous said...

I don’t blame Randy for his hate filed rants against female politicians. If I was a middle-aged “confirmed bachelor” I would be bitter too.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 9:31 AM: with Google, add this to the end of your search:

Anonymous said...

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - The U.S. Army plans to prevent media from covering Sarah Palin's appearance at Fort Bragg, fearing the event will turn into political grandstanding against President Barack Obama, officials said Thursday.

Fort Bragg spokesman Tom McCollum told The Associated Press that Bragg's garrison commander and other Army officials had decided to keep media away from Palin's book promotion. He said the Army did not want the Monday event to become a platform to express political opinions "directed against the commander in chief."

"The main reason is to stop this from turning into a political platform," he said. "There are Army regulations that basically prohibit military reservations from becoming political platforms by politicians."

He said only one politician can use that platform, "and that person does it as our commander in chief."

Other members of the public would be permitted to attend the event.

Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, has already agreed not to give a speech at Bragg, McCollum said. But he worried that Palin's supporters might make the event political and use the media to express opinions from the base.

"This will stop someone from grandstanding," he said.

A spokeswoman for Palin's publisher, HarperCollins, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Palin began her promotional tour this week for a new memoir, "Going Rogue," with plans to travel through several states that were key to the 2008 election, including North Carolina.

McCollum said it's not clear if Palin is considered a politician but noted that she has been critical of Obama while promoting the book. She said in an interview with ABC News that Obama should provide more troops to Afghanistan.

"It frustrates me and frightens me—and many Americans—that President Obama is dithering around with the decision in Afghanistan," she said.

Palin doesn't appear to be using her book-signing events to explicitly promote her politics, however. She spoke briefly to supporters outside an event in Michigan on Wednesday, saying it was great to be there and not mentioning Obama.

At least one person in the crowd yelled: "Palin power. 2012, yes."

Anonymous said...

I just started reading Going Rogue and randomly skipped to the section right after the election. If you want to know the reasons behind her current posture towards "the media" just read that book and you'll understand.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Al Gore:

Personally, I think Gore should let the media into all of his conference talks. It's gutless to do otherwise, just as it is gutless for Palin to refuse to let the media -- even a hostile media -- question her.

However, there's one big distinction. Gore is giving talks about the environment. Palin is clearly gearing up to run for the office of President of the most powerful country on Earth.

If ANY candidate for POTUS refused to regularly meet the media (no, not Oprah, a press conference) and be questioned, there's no way in hell I'd vote for them.

Palin included. She has something to hide, which is clearly that she has no real grasp of the issues.

The whole "the media is out to get me" nonsense don't fly either. Nice cover story, flies with her true believers, but it don't wash with the independent voter. You run for POTUS, you answer questions. Democrat. Republican. Independent.

In the end it won't matter. Palin refuses to try to expand her base of supporters with cowardly silliness like this. And you can't get elected POTUS with the same old 22% of the population voting for you.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I think Palin is doing the same thing Gore is doing, selling books and trying to control their image.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion on Palin. However, it seems to me if you are going to call someone “gutless” or a “coward” then you ought to have the balls to run for office yourself and not just pontificate on a blog.

Randy said...

Considering that I allow anonymous jerks like you to make comments about me all of the time and I sign my own name to what I write says a lot more about my courage than it says about yours.

Michael said...

I don't believe that the sort of convos put on by COFO are very conducive to media coverage and questioning. They hold them in a big gymnasium and the speaker simply says their part, accepts a gift, and then leaves. There is never any Q/A. The news stations will be able to obtain stock footage of the event...I guess I am confused as to the problem of no media since it is always this way there with their major convos.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:04,

Why would my name matter? Is Palin going to swoop in and kick my ass? Are you? Give the manly man song a rest.

If Palin just wants to sell books, then I honestly couldn't care less if she refuses to engage the media. It's still gutless, but who cares.

However when she runs for office, as she most certainly will, I will expect that many conservatives will call her to account for her years of media avoidance. Right? Because who would vote for a POTUS who refuses to take questions at a press conference, right?

If Gore runs, which will never happen, I'll gladly say the same about his cowardly self too.

Anonymous said...

Palin will feel right at home at C of O. They are a right wing, religious bunch of nuts, who believe the opposition is always evil.

Anonymous said...

didn't know C of O was so heavily Democrat...i.e. the opposition is evil sure marks them

Anonymous said...

Yes Randy, you are a real hero. The abuse you take from jerks like me far exceeds the attacks made on Palin and her kids.

What impresses me the most about your posts is how you excel at childish name calling while eschewing intelligent debate.

BTW, I see that the editorial review for your new book at Amazon states that you enjoyed “a storied newspaper career” that earned you “ more than 100 awards.” Could you share with us what awards you won (or at least the top ten)? Also, the review mentions that your latest book is “the follow-up to the highly successful The Turner Report.” I see that The Tuner Report has an Amazon sales rank of #2,597,282 is that your definition of “highly successful?”

Anonymous said...

I know this may seem to be a big jump for some or maybe many, but it amazes me how divided our country has become.
Let's go back to WWII and how our country, all political parties, all individuals, united together to fight a common enemy.
Do we not now have a common enemy trying to destroy our nation. Is not our economy and our standing in the world not at risk for our survival?
Must we be so petty about our little differences that we can't unite with a common cause!

Anonymous said...

It is just amazing that Turner continues to criticize others for their personal attacks but his "gutless" attack on Palin is okay? I have asked you many times on this blog why you have this double standard but you have never been able to answer. I doubt that she has ever personally attacked you Turner so I don't see the need for the hostility. Oh that's right we are the fools for reading your babbling. Anytime you put down Nodler's name or Palin's increases your blog traffic and makes you feel important even though it is not you people are searching for. perhaps you should put a bit more effort into your lesson planning in order to get those comm arts MAP scores up. Lord knows that craphole school district could use improvement. It's no wonder the reputation the district has with teachers like you continuing to add to the embarrassment.

Send in the clowns said...

Sarah Palin is a politician and all politicians are whores. The politicians who are not whores and who honestly show their disdain for the public and thus are running for office in order to cause trouble or demand certain things get done are called 'nuts.'

The news-media are all whores. They lie and connive in order to put forward their idiot notions. They get caught and then lose audience share and then get fired. Right, Turner?

So the secret to political success given that whores lie is to get their johns in a row. Palin wants to sell her idiot ghost-written book before an audience of Republi-tards as surely as OwlGore wants to only appear before worsheepfull Demo-tards. Neither are able to think on their feet, to engage hecklers, so they choose a safe path, like Obama with a back-up teleprompter and Flush Rimblow with call screeners.

So the sundry partisans choose their safe grounds and safe audiences and turn it into a media event and bar the hostile whores of a different faction. Then the barred whores then screetch outside in the 'free-speech' area about how they can't set up shop in that particular brothel area, how the opposing whores are diseased, and how their johns are pathetically stupid to buy their tail from their preferred prostitutes.

I say that all of them are poxed and morally and mentally syphilitic. And so I don't take any of them seriously. Why should anyone? The whole country is polarized and so they pick and side with politicians and bloggers who cater to their prejudices. What else is new?

I do, however, appreciate Turner screetching about how cowardly and idiotic the Republi-tards are, especially given that the Demo-tards are usually smarter, just eviler.

And Turner, if you want to cut off the comments section which is what most of us read in order to see you you yelp and scramble, then go ahead and make your blog irrelevant. You are a performing clown -- a swine who sometimes finds a truffle -- and if your audience wants to see a free circus then you will need to go with the flow and shuck & jive and juggle for our entertainment with a smile. You really do need to understand that in the great meaning of things you are really nothing but a whore-clown needing to stop taking yourself so very seriously. You have the drawback of any politician or reporter in that your political half-life is determined by how much you got caught lying in the past. Your only cure is to move to a place where nobody knows you. Otherwise, stop threatening to 'pull a Palin' (Ashcroft, OwlGore, etc.) on us. OK?

Whores galore. Buy you a ghost-written book and leave twenty Federal Reserve Note$ on the nightstand when you go to see the clown of your choice. Ain't De-mock-racy wonderfool?

By the way, I think I'll stay at home this season and rewatch the youporn video of a Sarah look-alike cherry-picking some Y&D&FofC feeb that I bookmarked from last year.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure that Turner being "unbiased" or against personal attacks means he can't use terms like "gutless". They are personal attacks when they are led by partisan bias, and when they are meant to deflect attention to substantive issues held by the person in question.

In this case, if Turner is willing to call Democrats gutless for doing similar things, he's free of the first worry. Given that Palin doesn't have any substantive thoughts on any issues (which is why she avoids the press) he's already free of the second.

Anonymous said...

Gutless Palin, gutless C of O, it's a match made in hypocrites' hell!

Anonymous said...

The problem with liberals is that you cannot tolerate opposing views. Anyone that disagrees with you has got to be dishonest, stupid and/or evil. So, you all see no problem with ad hominem attacks against your opponents (but then cry like babies when subjected to the same treatment). In fact, as Anonymous 9:43 demonstrates, liberals can post an “argument” that is totally devoid of reason and then sit back and pat themselves on the back for being so intellectually superior to the object of their scorn.

First, 9:43 of course Randy is biased. This is not CNN, it is an opinion blog. Randy is picking and spinning stories that support his political perspective. Virtually anytime someone challenges Randy on a post, he pulls out the “it’s an opinion” card. Second, Randy has defended attacking Palin for not having reporters at a paid speaking event while not attacking Gore (who makes a habit of this) because Gore hasn’t done it in SW Missouri yet. Ergo, Randy’s position is that avoiding the press is okay so long as it is not in SW Missouri. My position is if Palin is a coward for doing this then so is Gore.

Second, if Palin is such a joke and holds no substantive views then why the obsessive hatred? I find Dennis Kucinich to be a strange little weirdo but I know he will never amount to anything so I feel no need to attack him. Conservatives at least stick to attacking people who really have power. Whereas, liberals have the odd need to attack everyone they disagree with wether they have any power or not.

Anonymous said...

Liberals don't mind opposing views any much more than conservatives don't mind them. In fact, painting 100 or so million people with the "trouble with..." broad brush just isn't my thing.

People dislike Palin _because_ she has no substantive views and acts as if she does have them, and then bends herself into a pretzel to avoid any real vetting of the depth of her understanding by media. That makes her very dangerous in a position of power and quite frankly, it makes her contemptuous of the duty of a potential public servant to have their views thoroughly vetted before the public.

There are plenty of conservatives (quite a lot, actually) that I admire greatly. But they actually have substantive opinions and arguments to back them up with. They also aren't afraid to be challenged. I don't agree with most of them, but I admire them and respect them quite a bit.

Palin just ain't in that camp, and somehow I doubt she'll ever become a member. I don't even think those conservatives want her as a member.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it amazing how this blog turns from the Palin visit to an attack on Al Gore and Randy Turner. Anything to try to justify the ignorance of Sarah Palin. She should feel right at home of C of O, aka Palinville.

Anonymous said...


They are just diversionary tactics. In the end, what does it matter? I'm willing to say that if Al Gore or Randy Turner run for public office but refuse to have their opinions and positions vetted through real interchange with the media, I won't vote for them. No problem.

Will they say the same about Palin?

Anonymous said...

It is not a diversionary tactic to demonstrate that the issue a person is complaining about is not really their gripe. In this case the offense is not that a media figure (which is all Palin is at this point) does not turn her public appearances into news conferences. The offense is that Palin exists and enjoys some level of popularity. This fact is demonstrated by noting that the same people who are so bent out of shape over Palin’s actions in this case have absolutely no problem when their idol (Al Gore) does the same thing.

So, obviously the issue is the person and not the act. If you guys wish to lie to yourselves and say that you would hate Palin less if she had reporters at a speaking engagement that’s fine, but no one else buys it.

Anonymous said...

If you disagree with an idiot liberal, you are evil or ignorant....or just wrong. Give me a break. Check the average education level of most liberals.....then you will understand.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:27 implies that liberals viciously attack people who disagree with them and then viciously attacks liberals in the same sentence. On top of the fact that I did no such thing, that's pretty funny.

Anon 9:59: To reply that "Gore does it too" is a diversionary tactic, because it's not the issue at hand. If you walk on the grass and so do I, and you point out that I'm doing it too, that's a diversion from the issue that you shouldn't be walking on the grass.

I also never said that the issue wasn't the person. It is. Palin -- as a person -- has repeatedly shown a complete unwillingness (during the campaign and after) to have her views vetted. She's simply not willing to do it. She can hem and haw about the "lamestream" media all she wants, but it doesn't change the facts. She doesn't answer questions, more than likely because she has no depth of opinion on anything and so it's better not to risk exposure (which was said about her by the McCain campaign -- they were in damage control, keeping her as long as possible from the press).

I have also agreed (about twenty times so far) that IF that's all she intends on being -- a public celebrity -- then who cares if she meets with the media. I don't. However, if she intends on being more -- and I think it is naivete to think she does not have such aspirations -- then she has a public obligation to actually take questions about her views. Which she does not do. Other conservatives do it. Of course, talking to talk show hosts ain't going to cut it. Go on Meet the Press or something for God's sake. Have an interactive discussion for once. Her refusal speaks volumes.

Personally, to be honest, as someone on the left, I think it is fantastic that Palin has this level of popularity. Politically, I think she's a disaster for the Republicans (an opinion shared by a great many Republicans, I might add). So politically speaking, I'm not angry at all about her popularity. I hope it grows greater and greater.

However, non-politically, I think people like her -- who refuse to honestly stand and defend what they believe in -- are hurtful to civic discourse. I have already said (and I guess I'll repeat my self AGAIN): if Gore runs for president but refuses to be vetted, I wouldn't vote for him. Why? Because that's your civic responsibility as a person vying for high public office. I assume you feel the same way about Palin, yes?

Anonymous said...

If you will go back and read the article we are talking about you will notice two things: First, Palin is not being criticized for not answering questions, she is being criticized for not letting reporters come into a promotional speech. So, this “vetting” nonsense is the diversion. The article had nothing to do with Palin answering question, rather it had to do with her, in Randy’s view, being afraid of having her speech covered by reporters.

Second, Palin’s actions were being portrayed as uniquely “gutless.” When another poster noted that Gore does the same thing, a left wing poster asked for documentation (implying that none existed), which I provided for him. Of course, having proven that Gore does do it we have switched from arguing “no he doesn’t” to “it doesn’t matter.”

Your argument, as I understand it, is that Palin will run for office one day and thus she owes it to the American people to be in full campaign mode from now until 2012. One the other hand, Gore is not running for anything and therefore there is no need to “vet” him. However, I would argue that Gore is in fact campaigning, he is campaigning to change not only American economic and environmental policy but the entire words . . . Plain is just selling a book about her experiences in politics.

While some may have fantasies of Palin running for office, the fact is that as of now she is not. If and when she starts running for something THEN the criticism may be valid but do you seriously mean to imply that you do not know Palin’s political opinions? If so, then here’s a newsflash: she is a right wing Christian conservative. I think anyone with the slightest interest in politics knows what that means and you either agree with her positions or you do not. If this was an election year and she were running for something then “yes” I would expect her to try to meet with reporters and speak to people beyond her base. However, I’m 43 and I cannot think of a single “candidate” for president (including President Obama) who, THREE YEARS before the next election, while on a book tour, was expected to hold news conferences at every public appearance.

Again, if you want to kid yourself and say that you do not know who Palin is and that she owes you news conference everyday, fine. As for Palin being a disaster for the Republican party, I guess time will tell on that one so there is no point arguing over it. I will note though that one year into the Obama Administration we have double digit unemployment, record foreclosures, an exploding deficit and a “war of necessity” that we are losing and yet cannot work up the will to make decisions to do what it take to win or cut our loses and withdraw.

So, in my view, President Obama is the disaster.

Anonymous said...

Leave her alone. Wink, wink.

She is the best thing that could possibly happen to the Democrats and we love her.

She will make Romney and the "boys" spend lots of their money fending off her winking beauty in a robust primary AND assure our win.

Leave that Rogue-ing Maverick alone, stop picking on our pick of the litter!!

Smooch, smooch.

Anonymous said...

And.....Obama is eh best thing that could happen to the other side. His first year has been a disaster and he continues to show daily that he was over-matched from the onset and that the only "change" he has brought is more troops in Afghanistan, socialized health care, a plummeting approval rating, and a bumbling idiot of a vice-president who just can't shut up to save himself. Yeah, things are great for the demos....LOL

Anonymous said...

I suppose I'll insist Sarah must allow access to her by the liberal media as soon as obama allows access to him by FOX. Just let me know when o goes on FOX and I'll get all over Palin's case! LoL!

Anonymous said...

Obama was just interviewed by Major Garrett. Palin's press interview is scheduled for...?

Anonymous said...

I say just let Palin go ahead and do what she's doing. She's shallow, appeals only to ideologues, the ignorant and those who recognize her sexy appearance and confuse it with leadership skills.

The team of Palin/Beck would be perfect for the next election. If they lose, they get the drubbing they deserve for being fearmongers and negativists.

If they win, I get to move to Canada and get some darned good healthcare. They say Montreal looks good, even in the snow.

Imagine her winking at you from Mt. Rushmore. :)

College Research Papers said...

Many institutions limit access to their online information. Making this information available will be an asset to all.