The Swine is Offended Because the Pit Bull with Lipstick was Labeled "Nuts"

The swine (Limbaugh) defends the Pit Bull w/Lipstick  This is hilarious:

"As usual, the tired old bigoted comedian Rush Limbaugh took offense that anyone could call Sarah Palin 'nuts,' even though she is quite obviously a few sandwiches short of a picnic, and her grip on reality is, shall we say, tenuous. And as usual, Limbaugh blamed it on the left, i.e. the Guardian's Wintour/Watt blog. What he doesn't understand is that Palin's nutsiness is not a partisan matter in Britain, or anywhere else in the world. It is an obvious truth marveled at by all. Palin's emergence as a serious figure in American politics has made the country a laughing stock across the world. The idea that a stateswoman like Thatcher, in advanced dementia, would be used by such a crackpot is simply unseemly."

UPDATE from post on Palin below:

On someone's show on FAUX NOOZ (Hannity's?  I don't watch so I don't know) Palin characterized the Paul Revere brouhaha as a "gotcha!" question.  It seems every question she's asked is a "gotcha!" question because she can't articulate a coherent answer.  She blames the questioner instead of her appalling lack of intelligence and inability to speak American English.

This, BTW, was the "gotcha!" question:

"What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?"

It was Palin who brought up the subject of Paul Revere, not the questioner.  She screwed up herself, then blamed it on the "lamestream" media and a "gotcha!" question.  Not an admirable trait in someone who aspires to be a leader.

This analysis of Palin is, I believe, correct.  Her adoring fans are, in part, to blame for her miserable failures in the political arena, since they continue to make excuses for her appalling lack of knowledge and pettiness:

"...the longtime pathologies and weaknesses of Sarah Palin are still with us. It's been three years since she stumbled over Katie Couric's question about what she typically reads. In its aftermath, much of the conservative media was complicit in permitting her the excuse that it was a gotcha question by the "lamestream media." So no surprise that Sarah Palin is now claiming, after a questionable statement about Paul Revere's midnight ride, that the media is to blame. "A shout out, gotcha kind of question was asked of me," she said. Here is the actual question she was asked: "What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?"


Gotcha!

Palin bears ultimate responsibility. A more mature politician who learned from mistakes would understand that an off-the-cuff misstatement is perfectly normal and inconsequential, whereas complaining about the world's most innocuous question makes you look insecure, petty and ridiculous to everyone save your apologists. Far harder to learn from mistakes, however, when amid a lost election, public missteps, and tanking popularity, intelligent ideological allies do nothing but make excuses, going so far as to write a book positing that among all politicians you're uniquely persecuted.

When there's an ideological bubble inside which conservative pols can reach their supporters, boost their egos, and earn millions of dollars by returning the favor of uncritical flattery, why would they bother to engage with the outside world? Despite the success of Fox News, right-leaning Web sites, and talk radio, many conservatives still behave as if they're at a perpetual disadvantage in the mass media, and that they're therefore justified in putting tribal loyalties before all else. Defending every perceived slight results in more news cycles won, higher ratings, and more lucrative book contracts. It is, however, corrosive in the long term. It is in the DNA of politicians to pander. They do the bare minimum to accrue supporters and no more than is necessary to keep them. On the strength of folksy charm and a facility for driving liberals crazy, Sarah Palin gave Rich Lowry starbursts, got a multimillion dollar pundit deal from Roger Ailes, and persuaded Mark Levin that she's a credible presidential candidate. Really guys?

Even if conservative tastemakers had demanded more of Palin from the beginning, she wouldn't be presidential material. Few pols are. But she'd probably be more self-aware, more knowledgeable, more polished, and less erratic. She's smart and ambitious, after all. Why wouldn't she work harder and rein in her worst qualities if the golden ticket of conservative-movement affection required it? It's time that the right stop coddling its rising stars like trust-fund brats who are bailed out of trouble and assured at every opportunity that it's someone else's fault anytime something goes wrong. What do Paris Hilton and Palin have in common? The privilege and burden of knowing that even if they accomplish nothing of significance for the rest of their lives, they'll stay rich.

It shows."

--Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic