Predictable: Bristol Vs. Keith

In which Sarah Palin's drunk stalker - John Zeigler - has Bristol Palin on his show to take predictable and sophomoric jabs at Keith Olbermann after Bristol made the top of his WPITW segment.



Bristol's response began within the warm confines of conservative talk radio.



But Bristol's ghostwriter - the same one who does Mama Palin's posts perhaps? - took to Facebook to try and turn hypocrisy into conservative gold:

Accusing me of hypocrisy is by now, an old canard. What Mr. Olbermann lacks in originality he makes up for with insincere incredulity. Mr. Olbermann fails to understand that in order to have credibility as a spokesperson, it sometimes takes a person who has made mistakes. Parents warn their children about the mistakes they made so they are not repeated. Former gang members travel to schools to educate teenagers about the risks of gang life. Recovered addicts lecture to others about the risks of alcohol and drug abuse. And yes, a teen mother talks about the benefits of preventing teen pregnancy.

I have never claimed to be perfect. If that makes me the "worst person in the world" to Mr. Olbermann, then I must apologize for not being absolutely faultless like he undoubtedly must be.

To Mr. Olbermann let me say this: you can attack me all you want. But you will not stop me from getting my message out about teen pregnancy prevention. And one day, if you ever have a daughter, you may change your mind about me.

I seriously doubt that Bristol would use the word "canard" in her everyday conversational walk, but that's another point for another day.

While Zeigler and his co-host attempt to deflect from Bristol's very real and unblushing hypocrisy by claiming that Olbermann is the real hypocrite because of his private donations prior to the 2010 Midterm elections, they ultimately relied on the "people do this all the time" meme.

Here's where they are, and continue to be, on the wrong side of the issue.

Every time I see some half-cooked PSA about how you shouldn't do "insert problematic issue of the moment" from someone who has been partaking in that "issue" for years, it is nothing more than a "so as I say, not as I do" set of talking points. Personally, I think that last thing that Bristol should be doing is talking about how you shouldn't have sex before marriage - just as I still think that last thing that "recovering alcoholics" - like Glenn Beck for example - should do is talk about how no one should drink. This is hypocrisy in it's purest form. Period.

But Bristol and her ever drooling fans are going to lap up everything she says and does. And to think that people like her and her mother are actually shaping corners of American culture in their image is truly a frightening thing indeed.

Exit observation: I don't really agree with Olbermann's use of the "Bush kept us safe from 9/11" comparison, as it really doesn't do anything but provide ammunition for people like Zeigler, Palin and her ghostwriting staff, and conservatives that like to think they are just like her. Was Keith using it in an absurdist way? One can only assume, but that still doesn't make it any more palatable.

The Reasons She Shouldn't

It's amazing how some conservatives will attempt to rationalize why Sarah Palin shouldn't have to leave her edited confines over at Fox"News" in order to do a live interview somewhere else. Is it maybe because she will come off as the rank amateur that she truly is?

Palin's number-one metaphorical finger-banger John Zeigler has urged her to accept an invitation to Jake Tapper's program for an interview. This, however, will not happen, even with his semi-drunken ramblings on.

And the damage control for Palin's soon-to-be rejection has already begun over at Hot Air.

Two possible arguments for why she shouldn’t do it. One: Tapper won’t give her a fair shake. Does anyone believe that, though? Granted, JT shouldn’t have excised the term “ObamaCare” from his blog posts just because a few lefty idiots complained, but that’s the only (very minor) sin he’s guilty of that I can recall. There are multiple posts in our own archives about him being tough on Gibbs, and he’s a straight enough shooter to have earned the respect of a Palin-defending media critic as stalwart as Ziegler. He’s not going to ask her what she likes to read, especially not when there’s plenty of topical material circulating on her own Facebook page these days to inquire about. If you want a fair yet challenging interview, that’s your guy.

Two: She’s not ready for an interview with someone who’s not necessarily favorably disposed to her. There may be Palin-haters willing to argue that position, but surely not Palin-supporters. Ziegler thinks she’s plenty capable of handling Tapper’s questions, and the fact that she writes her own Facebook posts supports his position. If you’re serious about her running for presidency, one of the easiest ways to convince swing voters that she knows more than her detractors give her credit for would be to do a “prestige” Sunday show away from the safe haven of FNC. How about it? Israel, the oil spill, offshore drilling, Iranian nukes, the midterms and beyond — there’s plenty to talk about. Palin 2.0 launches now. Exit question: Does Tapper realize that if he trips her up with even a single question, some of her hardest core fans are going to call him a communist?

And here's two points from me to rebuke what Allahpundit is trying to do - aside from his attempt to convince people that her Facebook posts aren't ghost-written.

First: I'm sensing a set-up from Zeigler. If she goes on ( and I honestly don't think she will ) and she flubs ( like she most certainly would ) Zeigler's probably going to have enough material from conservative friends, a possible second interview with Palin, and plenty of video footage from the as-yet interview to make another film for Rich Lowry to masturbate to while he's sipping on his iced tea.

Second: Allah is correct - she's not ready for an interview where someone like Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly is going to hold her in the warm arms of the editing suite and practically feed her the answers through a sippy-cup. And yes, the lunatic-fringe Palin fanatics will most certainly lambaste the interview even if there is a modest give and take with Tapper. After all, Jake is known to coddle to the conservative base when he knows it will give him at least a weeks worth of street cred with them. But is that the mitigating factor when decided whom Palin should and shouldn't speak to - whether or not they think the interviewer is going to play a game of tee-ball with her?

I'm really hoping that this will happen. I'm sure, like Allahpundit, that Tapper would stay away from the "what do you read" type questions, but if he asks a question even on par with "what do you think of the Bush doctrine", the Palin is toast.

Conservatives Finally Turning On The Fringe Members

It was only a matter of time before members of the conservative movement began to not only reject, but actively attempt to distance themselves from the drooling sychophants that continually espouse that Sarah Palin is tantamount to the second coming of Christ.

In his movie "Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted," Ziegler went after the mainstream media for perceived liberal bias and slights against the Alaska governor. This weekend at the Western Conservative Political Action Conference (WCPAC), Ziegler went after a target closer to home: David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. In the end, the documentarian gets cursed at and kicked out of the conference. In response he's put video of the entire encounter on Mediaite.

Ziegler was after Keene for criticizing Palin, but he also attacked the conservative leader for supporting Sen. Arlen Specter (pre-party switch) and reportedly trying to sell his group's support to FedEx.

Because no one in the world, and ABSOLUTELY no one within the conservative movement, can be critical of Palin without facing the drooling, neo-drunken, wrath of John Ziegler.

It's become no suprise that some of the most popular conservative bloggers and their commenting base have not only aligned themselves with Palin, but are increasingly more and more aligning themselves with the more radical, more fringe, elements of conservative ideology.

The modern conservative movement - which is embracing the sophomoric tactics, themes, and ideals of their fringe compatriots - are more concerned with the gimmicks, the tricks and flourishes, of rhetorical gameplay than honesty and intellectual integrity in the socio-political realm.

Does He Really Expect To Be Taken Seriously?

That's the question I ask everytime John Zeigler is interviewed by anyone not affiliated with Fox"News".



When you see that creepy grin on Ziegler's face, you almost ask yourself if he's having a wank while talking about Sarah Palin or if he fancies himself as just clever and has this compulsion to smile all the time in spite of himself.

Regardless of the answer you come up with, John Ziegler's inability to contain his utter lust for Palin - and his ill-founded contempt for anyone outside the conservative media sphere of disinformation - is nothing short of intolerable.

Contessa Brewer had some rather relevant questions to ask of John, but he prefered to play the roll of stubborn frat-boy who's more concerned with propping up his own ego than answer a simple question. Come to think of it, that might just be an insult to all the bone-headed frat-boys I've ever come into contact with.

Ziegler's rabid fanboy posturing aside, don't you think that Palin would have been better off ignoring the Letterman bit rather than jumping on the cross and wailing for someone to come to her defense? After all, comedy isn't pretty all the time and being the camera-whoring public figure she is, Letterman's riff on her was tame compared to most.

I'm sure that Ziegler will go running to Fox and Friends tomorrow morning and whine like a little girl with a skinned knew about how he was mistreated.

Blumenthal V. Ziegler

Max Blumenthal has this vry direct, very unashamed style of interviewing. He's very calm in his approach, but his questions - while delivered in a calm, rational fashion - are far more relevant and sharp than most in the media.

Here's what happens when he bumps into John "Don't Hold Sarah Palin To Any Type Of Standard" Zeigler at this years CPAC.



Max Blumenthal has more at his posting from The Daily Beast

Why the rage? Well, the roots of Ziegler’s fury lay in a series of reports I produced in 2006 about the factually challenged TV movie The Path To 9-11, in which I laid out the film’s ulterior right-wing agenda......In early 2008, I received a series of emails from someone calling themselves “Konrad Ziegler.” “I am producing a documentary on how "The Path to 9/11" got essentially killed in 2006 and I am wondering if you would be willing to do an interview with me and take a victory lap for your role in helping to create that reality,” the mysterious filmmaker, “Konrad,” wrote me in an email. Given the unusually cryptic nature of his request, I declined to respond.

When the film Blocking The Path To 9-11 appeared, my suspicions were confirmed—“Konrad” was actually John Ziegler. Variety panned Ziegler’s documentary, calling it “tedious.”

You Think John Zeigler's A Flaming Choad Now.....

.....check this out.

Did you know that he was on one of those really cheesey dating/reality/shows?



( h/t: David Neiwert @ Crooks And Liars )

Zeigler's Flacid Thesis

I'm starting to wonder what John Zeigler's "documentary" is about.

doc talk
by luvnews

Norah O'Donnell appears to understand that Ziegler is more than just a rank amateur - he's a pretty clear example of the lunatic Right's pathetic nature. She even refused to acknowledge Zeigler's claim that Norah was rewarded for allegedly stating something about Palin that wasn't true.

We all know that Palin had a penchant for drawing equivalency between Barack Obama and terrorists. That was Norah's point, which Zeigler more than likely knows. It simply just doesn't fit into his flacid thesis about the media.

The one part of this interview that really stands out is Zeigler's assertion that show like Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, or Colbert, are used as "news sources" - or that people with whom he is directing his pathetic rage at are looking to John Stewart or Tina Fey as news sources.

Zeigler makes somewhat of a point, and then turns right around and casts it aside, of the line between entertainment and honest reporting.

The reason that shows like The Daily Show or Colbert are successful, that they connect so well with their audience, is that you have to be able to understand what they are talking about. You have to know the news before you get to those programs.

And did you catch where Zeigler said "poll after poll show that more people get their news from comedy shows"? Wonder which polls he is refering too?

Oh, that's right. Those polls don't exist.

Direct To DVD Nonsense

Matt Lauer and right-wing "filmmaker" John "Go Fuck Yourself Nate" Keigler had a nice chat on The Today Show:



Certainly, there were plenty of people within America that have called Palin an "idiot". But, to have that as the keystone of your argument - apparently not just within this particular interview - is a tad sophomoric.

Zeigler, to this writer, seems a bit to gung ho for his own good. By that, I mean that he seems to be far too enraptured with this idea that there is some hidden, shadow-faction of media moguls that meet annually in the Hamptons in order to discuss who they are going to get elected each voting cycle.

It's the classic "conservative sore loser" position.

People like Zeigler are not concerned with correcting the problems within the country, like the economy. They are more concerned with creating a winning image to a losing team.

That being said, I'd really like to see how the rest of the film plays out.

I'm sure that it's comedy gold.

A Glutton For Punishment

David Shuster vs. John Ziegler ( again )

Here's some points to consider from this interview:

Ziegler says Palin never blames the media for the loss. But, his upcoming documentary ( as well as Palin's attitude in reference to the failed campaign ) is called "Media Malpractice" and his entire thesis is based around how the media is complicit in making masive sections of the American voting population vote for Obama.

Pain blames not only the media, but the McCain campaign, for her inability to answer simple questions.

Ziegler won't talk about his own "love" of Palin that reaches back before her becoming McCain's VP choice.

He dismisses any and everything negative said by Republicans that have been normally uplifted, such as: George Will, Charles Krauthammer ( what an interesting last name he has ), David Brooks, Senator Chuck Hagle, David Frum, and Colin Powell ( although he has been cast in the role of "Uncle Tom" of late by people such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly ). He does this within the context ( yeah, you know, that word that Republicans like to use but don't know the definition of ) of being booked on network news programs.

Ziegler refuses to answer as to whether Palin takes ANY responsibility as to her inability to be Vice President. Instead, he let's us know that there is an additional 53 minutes of the interview that "we ain't seen yet". Interesting. Are we in store for more folksy-nonsense when this hits a limited run of movie outlets?

And there's more.

This doesn't suprise me. Zielger is the man that ha the intellectual fortitude, the will, the need, the desire, the right, to say go fuck yourself when called-out for his laughable ideals.

Supplication and The Mockumentary To Come

I can't count the number of times that I have told myself that the screwball antics of the lunatic-fringe Right no longer suprise me. And there have been moments where I have had to take that back.

Here's another one.

John Ziegler, that guy that created his own version of a conservative "push-poll" to attempt to prove that the media were complicit in dumbing down large swaths of American voters in order to get Barack Obama elected, has a new interview with Sarah Palin.

Apparently, this is to be part of his new "documentary" called Media Malpractice.

Here, Ziegler talks about his interview with Palin:

One of the things you quickly learn when you visit the Palins is that the legend that has been created around who they are and how they live is no myth. It appears to be absolutely real and everything about them seems 100% sincere. From the stuffed hunting trophies on the wall, to the Track’s military photo by the TV set, to Piper’s crayon school projects on the kitchen cabinets, everything is exactly as you imagine it might be.

Damn, I had been under the impression that the Palin house was going to become the new Fox"News" headquarters for 2009.

What was particularly valuable about the perspective I had was that, I am not Charlie Gibson, Matt Lauer or Greta Van Susteren (who I understand now gets her mail delivered to the Palin home); the conductors of the three most prominent interviews done in the Wasilla house on the frozen lake at the end of the drive that has the sign “Palins” posted on a tree at the entrance. Unlike them, I am virtually unknown nationally and there was absolutely no reason for anything to be done differently as a “show” for us. We saw the genuine Sarah Palin and it is patently obvious that this is the only one that exists. She is the real deal.

Van Susteren's interview was "prominent"? And, Ziegler is "unknown"? Well, he's not so much unknown as he is invalid. I mean, outside of the demographic that would call Van Susteren a "journalist", he's probably right. Then again, there are all those people that saw his ham-fisted approach at trying to prove that Democratic voters somehow lack the ability to think for themselves.

If anyone had seen the clips of his questions that were designed to prove the media had swayed the election, viewers with even a partially functioning brain-stem would see that these people simply didn't listen to right-wing talking points.

As a former TV sportscaster and radio talk show host, I have interviewed a lot big-time “celebrities,” and I can honestly say that, even though you could argue that Sarah Palin was the most prominent I have ever spoken to one-on-one, she was also by far the nicest, most sincere and, seemingly, honest subject that I have ever questioned.

Hate to break it to you, Johnny, but i'm certain that Sarah Palin knew what you were up to, so she turned up the folksy charm and was willing to say any and everything you were wanting her to. Surely, you can't be that dumb. Wait, don't answer that.



The more conservatives latch onto Palin, the more they reveal themselves to be completely devoid of rational thought.

Sarah Palin, as "pretty" as she might be to some - and Republicans do love their "set-dressings" - is just like the girl that was the captain of the cheerleading team. She loved to talk about school spirit, about doing great things for her class, told everyone that they should get a longer lunch and not have to take Spanish for three years, but wasn't about to back any of it up. It was too much work.

Palin, like that vacuous girl that captivated all the guys on the chess team, she's just lip-service and no delivery. She'll do any and everything you want, so long as she can stay "captain" - or in Palin's case, can be in the running for President.

To put it another way, most 6 or 7-year-old girls know that playing dress-up is just that - playing dress-up. They know their not really a princess. They know that this plastic, silver tiara has to come off before dinner. They still know that they have to go to school on Monday and take their spelling test. Perhaps someone should explain that to Sarah Palin.