… expect them to defend Sarah Palin. In a big stupid column about how Palin is a “diva”, here’s the run-down of this woman’s argument against defending her.

First, this:

Palin reportedly also annoyed some McCain insiders by calling their robocalls “irritating” and by second-guessing the campaign’s move out of Michigan.

That’s not “diva-like”. That’s accurate. Robocalls are irritating. So are annoying “columnists”.

This is great stuff right here:

But I refuse to defend Palin against this diva-bashing, although I often take up women’s causes in this column.

Yeeeeeah, sure. And why?

Palin brought this negativity upon herself.

Right. It’s her fault that a dummy dressed like her is hanging from a noose, too. I believe that. This is the same stupid argument as, “If those girls didn’t dress like that, they wouldn’t be getting raped.” They’re all bringing it upon themselves because of their choices. Nonono. Sexism - and in Palin’s case - blatant furious anger from the Left - is coming for no other reason than she disagrees with Lefty thought. It has nothing to do with her “bringing it upon herself”. You either defend everyone, or you admit that you defend only those who agree with you, which is exactly what’s going on in this soiled toilet-paper piece of a column. “I usually defend women … but NOT PALIN!”

Since the governor made her way from Alaska, Palin has spread enough half-truths and distortions about her Democratic opponents to merit some ill-will hurtling in her direction.

She deserves it, see? Like some tramp walking around in high-heels deserves to be dragged off, beaten, and abused. It’s all their fault they look like that anyway, right? Shouldn’t they know better? Shouldn’t Palin know better not to attack her political opponents? You know, she should practice getting rid of her stupid accent because with it she deserves to be made fun of as some backwoods hick, too.

Now for the big payoff:

She knows that Obama isn’t a terrorist or a socialist, but she refuses to stop the inflammatory rhetoric and racially coded language. And that crazy statement about Obama wanting to “punish hard work,” what’s with that?

Uhhh … couple of points here.

1) She didn’t call Obama a terrorist. She said he was pals with terrorists. Which is the same as saying, “He hung out in some guy’s living room that just so happened to bomb a whole bunch of U.S. Institutions.” In other words, it’s totally accurate. YOU are the one who is lying, Ms. Armstrong.

2) She doesn’t “know that Obama isn’t a socialist”. Again, a lie by Ms. Armstrong. Obama IS a socialist. Palin thankfully has the guts to say what a whole lot of people are thinking. Yeah, a guy who hangs out with Marxist professors, tells someone he wants to “spread the wealth around”, and laments that damned flawed Constitution of ours is a socialist. He deserves every bit of scorn and anger directed at him for trying to steer this country away from it’s roots as the cradle of liberty and into an age of Euro-socialism where everything for everybody is provided by the benevolent behemoth of the federal government.

3) Racially coded language my ass. If Obama didn’t want race brought up he shouldn’t have been black! See how ridiculous that argument is? Legitimate criticism of someone’s qualifications, associations, and ideals is not racism. “Don’t vote for that guy … BECAUSE HE’S BLACK!” isn’t the same as, “Don’t vote for that guy … BECAUSE HE’S A SOCIALIST!” Feeble-minded MSM types don’t get that, though.

Finally … “what’s with that” whole punishing hard work thing? Well, when you ask people who have good business minds that are successful to start forking over more of what they’ve earned to the government so they can give it to people who did not directly earn that … it’s punishing hard work.

They sure do grow them stupid these days, don’t they?