Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Palin on O’Reilly . . . Again – But What the Hell’s a “Guttural Instinct?”

Reported by Julie - November 21, 2009 -

The second moment we’ve all (not) been waiting for . . . another sit-down with O’Reilly and Palin on The O’Reilly Factor, which is just more of the same old Sarah Palin, ego running rampant, feigning modesty, winging the whole “fact” thing and making shit up as she goes along. Okay, you know how there’s the very worst teacher in high school, the one who drones on and never explains anything and has arbitrary rules that make no sense, who everybody hates -- and you find out first semester senior year that you have that teacher for math, your worst subject? You know that terrible sinking feeling you get about the thought of seeing that teacher every day? Yeah, that would be me, about Sarah Palin. I watch these O’Reilly interviews with my face turned half away, because I can’t bear to look at her straight on – it’s a combination of embarrassment for her, loathing for her, and scorn for her, because she’s so deluded by the few fringe groupies who actually think she’s a somebody that you can hardly bear to see her preen and gloat and smirk and mock. But hey, libs? Don’t hate her because she’s beautiful; hate her because she’s a “media star.” With video.

But before I continue, I have an elaboration. Thursday night, I posted on O’Reilly’s Part I interview with Sarah Palin – you can read it here. However, I missed something obvious, which I give a H/T to reader D D for pointing out. When O’Reilly was talking to Palin about her disastrous interview with Charlie Gibson and her cluelessness about the Bush Doctrine, O’Reilly made a comment that, when he heard that question, he himself was puzzled about what the Bush Doctrine was. However, as D D pointed out, O’Reilly was dissembling, evading, protecting, doing a CYA for Palin, LYING. As D D pointed out, in O’Reilly’s Talking Points Memo in March 2004 he said that “the Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists.” In a 2004 interview with Hans Blix, O’Reilly said that the Bush Doctrine was for removing terror regimes. O’Reilly also talked about the Bush Doctrine with Ed Koch in January 2004. And, as News Hounds reported, O’Reilly mentioned the Bush Doctrine in 2005 in a discussion with Dick Morris. So – thanks to D D for helping us with the task of Fox-News-Lies Maintenance.

Moving on . . . it’s O’Reilly’s “No Holds Barred” interview with Palin, says so right in the headline. And I simply cannot wait to watch O’Reilly pin Palin to the wall on the really hard stuff, ask the really tough questions, probe the truth, demonstrate critical, objective journalism. . . “Going Rogue will debut at #1 and it will be a huge bestseller for Harper Collins. That’s because Governor Palin has millions of admirers despite the unprecedented media assault.” Aw, Bill – you really need to work on that whole not doing a “cupcake” interview thing.

Palin talks about the, I guess, press pitfalls that brought her where she is today. “But I'm here where I am today, meaning we plowed through a lot of that stuff that they threw our way, a lot of the darts and the arrows thrown our way. I'm still standing and I'm here with Bill O'Reilly. I think that's a bit of a victory.” Uh, where are you today? A failed Vice-Presidential candidate. A failed Governor. Some “cupcake” performances on Fox News. A financially successful, maybe, but failed writer. A book that contains as many factual inaccuracies as Palin’s does – as the AP discovered in its fact check, a fact check, by the way, Palin wasn’t too happy with -- is not a literary success.

O’Reilly discussed the “vitriol” of the media, and Palin responded with some new Tina Fey material: “How would we have known though to the extent that it would have been made manifest their disdain for the normal American . . . ?” A big “huh?” on that one, eh?

O’Reilly put a “cupcake” spin on the fact that Palin has a dismal 23% favorable approval rating, with 37% saying they “don’t know.”

“You’re up at 60% of people who could like you [except, during the campaign, Palin didn’t go over big with the independents, and the 23% no doubt represents her rightwing-fringe base] . . . You are the biggest threat because you are a star, media star . . . now that’s why they’re attacking you so vehemently . . . .” And here Palin thought it was because she got a D in a college course 22 years ago, the one and only “skeleton” in her closet.

And you know something else? Shocking but true -- Palin isn’t a very quick study. During the campaign, if you recall, she made her harshly criticized “real America” comment, “praising small towns as ‘the real America’ and the ‘pro-America areas of this great nation’” (a comment she later apologized for). Now, here she goes again, except this time it’s the “heartland of America.”

Said Palin, “I do know though that . . . Perhaps they fear what you’re suggesting is a voice being heard that’s coming from the heartland of America, and I say that figuratively and literally . . . “ Since when, I ask, is Alaska considered the “heartland” of America? And much of the real “heartland” of America . . . voted for President Obama.

O’Reilly admiringly noted that “they’re calling you Evita, Eva Perrone” – like this is a good thing? In September 2008, Naomi Wolf of the Huffington Post noted, “Please understand what you are looking at when you look at Sarah ‘Evita’ Palin. You are looking at the designated muse of the coming American police state. You have to understand how things work in a closing society in order to understand ‘Palin Power.’ A gang or cabal seizes power, usually with an affable, weak figurehead at the fore. Then they will hold elections -- but they will make sure that the election will be corrupted and that the next affable, weak figurehead is entirely in their control.”

Palin whined, “There is no longer a mainstream media that can be trusted to be objective and fair and balanced.”

“I agree,” O’Reilly responded, “That’s why Fox does so well.”

“Exactly,” Palin simpered.

O’Reilly and Palin embarked, then, on a whirlwind tour of Palin revisionist history, such as that the “worst personal attacks” on her were the “attacks that had to do with the suggestions that Trig should never have been allowed to be born” because he is Downs Syndrome. I’m a left-wing lib, and I hang out with mainly left-wing libs, and I never, ever heard anyone suggest that; what I did, however, hear was criticism of her pro-life-no-matter-what stance because, if she had her way, no choice would be available to those of us who might abort a fetus if we knew it was in some way disabled.

Palin and O’Reilly also decided that her e-mail being hacked into during the campaign was like a “modern-time, modern-time, break-in of a campaign headquarters . . . .” O’Reilly went as far as to call it “Watergate light.”

O’Reilly asked Palin about the David Letterman feud, and said, “If Letterman invited you on to plug your book, would you go?”

Palin, with an astonishing display – even for her – of ego run amuck, said, “Noooh, I don’t think I would want to boost his ratings . . . .”

And then there’s Bristol’s baby-daddy, Levi Johnston – O’Reilly told her she shouldn’t answer questions about him.

And we have, apparently, a phrase fairly newly coined by Palin: “Guttural instinct.” With O’Reilly, Palin said, “After a year of getting clobbered by the media, capitalizing on people who will make things up [oh-oh, Levi, you’re in trouble now] . . . my guttural instinct is kind of like a mama grizzly bear . . . .” Back in July, she also twittered some craziness about bear management and mama bears having a “guttural instinct.” Except . . . not that facts or accuracy play any role in what Palin does or says, I would never imply that, the word “guttural” is not interchangeable with “gut” – which I believe is what she meant to say. The word “guttural,” as defined by Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary, is about the sound of a voice: “Being or marked by utterance that is strange, unpleasant, or disagreeable.” Should we even tell the Mensa Queen that she’s completely misusing a word she seems to like so much, or should we not confuse her with facts when her mind's made up?

It’s funny – the big thing that’s been bandied about by the right is that liberals are afraid of Sarah Palin. No. Fear is when, for example, a powerful cheetah is staring dead into your eyes and you know if you make the slightest move it will lunge for your throat. What we feel about Palin is more like being face to face with an enraged butterfly.