Fact-Free Palin

UPDATE II: "Between surreal appearances from Wasilla as the caged pundit of Fox News and quick, splashy landings in the lower 48 states, Palin has shown she still has the attention span of a hummingbird on a nectar jag. She does not do basic homework. Never has. The result is a string of endorsements for people whose lives are living contradictions of their stated philosophies. . .

But in deciding to get rich quick, the demi-governor has ditched whatever grounding she may have had in what Bush aides dismissed as the “reality-based community,” and lost her way in the Last Frontier State. Her brand is toast there, as well."

Read The New York Times, The Palin Brand.


UPDATE: "A question for fellow reporters and editors: At what point do Sarah Palin's attacks and smears become so vile and absurd that they no longer merit attention?" Read the Washington Post, Is there a Sarah Palin vileness/absurdity threshold?, which comments on Sarah Palin's strange, unprofessional and paranoid grudge.

Is Palin's learning curve is flat? Read the Washington Post, Sarah Palin's fact-free commentary on Paul and BP. From the article:

First, there was Palin on Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul, whose candidacy she had championed. Anchor Chris Wallace asked straightforward questions: Was Paul right or wrong in his view that the 1964 Civil Rights Act went too far in banning discrimination in private establishments? What did Palin make of the controversy? He got typically Palinesque answers, rambling and aggrieved:

"I think there is certainly a double standard at play here. When Rand Paul had anticipated that he'd be able to engage in a discussion, he being a libertarian-leaning constitutional conservative, being able to engage in a discussion with a TV character, a media personality, who perhaps had an agenda in asking the question and then interpreting his answer the way that she did, he wanted to talk about, evidently, some hypotheticals as it applies to impacts on the Civil Rights Act, as it impacts our Constitution. So he was given the opportunity finally to clarify, and unequivocally he has stated that he supports the Civil Rights Act."

Then there was Palin's best-defense-is-an-untrue-offense response to questions about the oil spill in the Gulf. The cheerleader for "drill, baby, drill" suggested that President Obama was in the pocket of Big Oil:

"The oil companies who have so supported President Obama in his campaign and are supportive of him now -- I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others if there's any connection with the contributions made to President Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration. If there's any connection there to President Obama taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there, and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico."

Facts are stubborn things. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the McCain campaign -- that would be the McCain-Palin campaign -- received $2.4 million from oil and gas interests to Obama's $900,000. BP employees did give more to the Obama campaign ($71,051) than to McCain's ($36,649), but this was a pittance in the context of Obama's fundraising.

Why does Republi-con created reality surprise anyone?