– by Josh Painter
Serial self-promoter John Ziegler is out with another Daily Caller BS piece claiming that no one had refudiated his article from last week. According to the naysayer, that means his predictions are solid gold or something. Obviously, Ziegler hasn’t been paying attention, because we’ve seen several good retorts to his arguments. Here are some excerpts from a lengthy riposte by Abie Rubin at The Thinking Voter:
John Ziegler’s current article did not come as a total shock to me because I saw something amiss in his article last week on the DC in which he wrote about “The Undefeated.” He applauded the new movie but claimed he can’t possibly see it accomplishing anything for Palin on the political scene. What caught my eye was the following sentence in the beginning of the article when he was still full of praise.
“In fact, I had suggested a similar concept to the Palins back in late 2009.”
Oh yeah? Then why did he suggest a similar concept less than two years ago if [he’s] so skeptical now? Additionally, who said it won’t be heavily advertised? Steven K. Bannon invested lots of money in this project and has tons of experience in this field, and those that have already gotten to see it have doubled over backwards in awe over the magnificent job he’s done. I feel bad for Ziegler that his terrific documentary hasn’t received more attention; however the timing of the current movie is perfect, the buzz surrounding it is deafening, and it is therefore promising to attract tons of viewers.
Ziegler wrote on 4/25/11 in the DC in regard to the E! Network documentary on Palin in which he participated but had barely received any attention because Trump had taken center stage at that time;
“…should Palin decide to run for president (I still think it is 60/40 that she will), this show targets the exact demographic with whom she will need to get a second chance in order to have a legitimate shot at beating President Obama: women who are not news junkies.”
So Ziegler believed two years ago, as well as less than two months ago, that with a compelling widely viewed documentary on Palin, many with unfavorable opinions or no opinion on her will recognize the truth about Sarah and support her. However, less than two months later, he made a complete about face.
“This is John Ziegler. Could you please explain to me where you got the insane idea that I wrote the article you are responding to for money? I made it clear at the new website that I was not paid and since it would be great for my movie, there is probbaly not a person on the planet with a greater incentive to promote an Obama/Palin matchup than me. Do you even care about the facts?”
First, note that Ziegler doesn’t respond to anything relating to my main argument, only at some assertion that I claim he only wrote the article for money (possibly by being paid by The Daily Caller) when I clearly stated “I’m not sure what Ziegler’s beef is – Money, Publicity, Palin ignored him…” First, I never suggested that he was paid by The Daily Caller. Second, it’s kind of silly for Ziegler to suggest the move wasn’t intended to pick up at least some sales because, most obviously, the website of “thesarahpaliniknow.com” has links to purchase Media Malpractice by John Ziegler; The Path to 9/11 by John Ziegler; The Death of Free Speech by John Ziegler. If you are mainly just a truth teller, why post links for people to buy your stuff on a newly created website that you know is about to get a huge spike in hits? And according to Alexa.com, your website johnziegler.com went from insignificant to a decent boom (with thesarahpaliniknow.com). Plus, by keeping your toe half-in and half-out of the water, I could see why many people would be interested in Media Malpractice even today. I thought it was fantastic and I have quoted it several times on this website. (And I still think Media Malpractice is relevant today and worth a watch, plus how moronic are those Obamavoters?)
Second, just because you release a pre-emptive response to what you know you will be criticized for, it doesn’t mean that those criticisms are not true, or that even your pre-emptive responses are true.
John Nolte has also shot down Ziegler’s argument that Gov. Palin is not electable here, and John Hawkins described Ziegler’s betrayal as “a no-class move from a flake who probably wasn’t motivated by anything more than a desire to keep his name in the news” here. Dan Riehl noted Ziegler’s curious timing here. Cornell Law School Associate Clinical Professor William A. Jacobson’s rebuttal (here) of Ziegler is, we believe, definitive.
The bottom line is that Ziegler’s long-winded knife-turning on Sarah Palin offers no “proof” to begin with, so his claim that his rant hasn’t been “disproven” is based on a fallacy. How can one disprove that which has not been proven? The illogical never fail to demand that the logical prove the wrong. But with Ziegler, it was never about proof or logic. As always, it’s all about him.
Cross-posted from Texans for Sarah Palin