EXHUMING ANOTHER LOSER TO TRASH PALIN

I thought the Sarahphobes had scraped the bottom of the barrel when they pulled out Trooper Taser to badmouth Palin, but I guess I underestimated their desperation. I see that Sully has actually linked to pathetic loser Andrew Halco.

And, when I use the word “loser,” I don’t mean that Halco is merely another neurotic Palin-basher. I mean that he is one of the good-old-boy politicians whose sorry asses she thoroughly kicked in Alaska’s 2006 gubernatorial race.

After she beat the establishment candidate for the GOP nomination, she faced two two opponents in the general. Halco was one of them, and he came in a distant third.  In other words, Halco is one of the many Alaska Orcs Palin has defeated.

Unable to accept his humilating defeat, Halco now writes a blog whose raison d’être has been (Surprise!) to slander Palin. And he isn’t just a sore loser. He’s also a misogynist. This is the header he uses in his “review” of Palin’s autobiography.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

So, I think we can safely write-off anything this character says as the bitter maunderings of a defeated opponent writhing in obscurity while Palin kills ‘em on the coast.

UPDATE:

Dan Riehl calls Sullivan on another cheap smear, this one based on a dishonestly edited video at Wonkette, suggesting that Palin quit Thursday’s 5K ”Turkey Trot” after the photo ops were over:

By linking to Wonkett’s 27 seconds of edited video, [Sullivan smears] Palin as a quitter who dropped out of a race and also believes Thanksgiving traditions are simply too much work for her. Neither assertion is based upon any truth. And it’s especially pathetic given how much of her own time Palin actually invested to help the Red Cross raise a significant amount of money, while she met and greeted people all throughout a 5k race.

The unedited video is provided by Jim Hoft. Contemplate, while you watch it, the deep weirdness of the Sarahphobes. Can you imagine any normal person needing to distort something like this?

Comments 9

  1. 090 wrote:

    Er, isn’t that post of yours about Halco a classic ad hominem fallacy?

    Posted 28 Nov 2009 at 2:36 pm
  2. Catron wrote:

    Er … nope. The ad hominem argument (there is no such thing as an ad hominem fallacy) is based on some personal trait of its subject.

    My essential argument against this guy’s credibility is based on his inability to be objective due to bitterness over his defeat at Palin’s hands.

    In other words, he is LITERALLY a “loser” in the political sense. That he is also a misogynist (and generally pathetic) is just icing on the cake.

    Posted 28 Nov 2009 at 3:02 pm
  3. 090 wrote:

    Your argument seems to go like this:

    1. X lost and feels bitterness towards the winner
    2. Anything said by someone who loses and feels bitterness towards the winner is false.
    3. X said Y about Palin.
    So,
    4. Y is false.

    This is valid, but the 3rd premise is clearly false.

    Posted 28 Nov 2009 at 3:18 pm
  4. Catron wrote:

    Well, 090, you might want to look up “syllogism,” because your grasp of this type of discourse is … er … tenuous.

    Posted 28 Nov 2009 at 3:23 pm
  5. Repack Rider wrote:

    Palin will never be a political candidate again. It’s hard work and she can’t control the message. People tend to ask harsh questions that can’t be answered with a bumper sticker philosophy. If Katie Couric was a tough interview, the threshold of toughness is in the negative figures.

    I don’t know why conservatives think liberals are worried about the possibility of Palin running for president. She wouldn’t get past the other Republicans.

    Posted 28 Nov 2009 at 4:04 pm
  6. ECM wrote:

    We *know* they (read: you) are worried because they expend so much effort tearing her down–nobody would spend that much time and effort going after someone that’s powerless. (See: the last 8 years of GWB derangement.)

    Posted 28 Nov 2009 at 11:07 pm
  7. Cognomen08 wrote:

    Andrew Halcro’s article supplied some interesting facts selectively missing from Palin’s account.
    It was obviously written by a thoughtful, informed, literate adult.
    I can understand your fear of it.

    Posted 29 Nov 2009 at 12:11 am
  8. Matthew Hamilton wrote:

    Perhaps since this blog seems to be 50% ad hominem, you might think there’s no such this as an ad hominem fallacy, but there most certainly is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 1:30 pm
  9. Catron wrote:

    Matthew, I would steer clear of Wikipedia if you’re looking for a serious reference. It is notoriously inaccurate.

    If you want a serious discussion of the ad hominem argument. I recommend this paper by David Hitchcock.

    Hitchcock is a Professor of Philosophy at McMaster University, and has considerably more credibility than Wikipedia.

    Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 1:31 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *