I’m about sick of it. OK, I’m actually well past being sick of it. And you should be too.
The AP wire now has an “analysis” from Ron Fournier titled “Analysis: McCain camp plays sexism card for Palin“. Unfortunately for the readers, Mr. Fournier just regurgitates Leftist, Daily Kos like talking points that have already been rebutted by others. Of course Mr. Fournier doesn’t mention those rebuttals, and just spits out his lies and attacks against McCain and Sarah Palin as if they are true.
So-called news organizations and media outlets pay for this drivel from the “Associated Press” don’t they? I’d suggest they ask for their money back, except we know they are all playing the same game. Lying, Smearing, Distorting and Attacking all to get their “Chosen One” elected President. And Mr Fournier, suggests all of us who are pissed off about this treatment of Sarah Palin and the media smears and Mr. Fournier’s lies are just being used by the McCain campaign and we’re too stupid to realize it
Read this garbage for yourself if you want, but here are some of the lies or smears that have already been refuted time and time again, yet Mr. Fournier presents as if they were the gospel truth.
- “Palin waited until last week to tell the McCain team that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter is five months pregnant.”
Not True says the McCain Campaign, even though Mr. Fournier doesn’t bother to mention that here.
- “Palin didn’t submit to a face-to-face interview with the head of McCain’s search team until a few days before her announcement.”
That comment seems to presume that Mrs. Palin was asked for a personal interview and denied it. But that’s not the case. John McCain met her in February 2008 and had personal conversations with her then. Then the vetting process took 4-5 months. She was on a short list that started with 21 people and got widdled down. At all points, Governor Palin remained on the list. She submitted everything the McCain campaign asked her for, including financial documents with completed, hand-prepared tax returns.
- “[S]he’s accused of improperly ordering the firing of the former public safety commissioner.”
This is true, she is “accused” of improperly ordering the firing of a public safety commissioner… but nowhere, NOWHERE is there an answer to this charge even though Palin has said she was an openbook on it and welcomed an investigation. There is a wealth of information about what really happened, about how the deadbeat tropper had tasered an 11 year-old, drank in his patrol car, etc… but Fournier doesn’t want to tell you that because he’s too busy carrying Barack Obama’s water. Mr. Fournier could have at least mentioned this affidavit in his “analysis” and offer “fairness” to the other side. But that wouldn’t fit his agenda.
- “[S]he supported the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and other pork-barrel projects before telling the nation on Saturday that she was against them.”
Apparently only liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama are allowed to change their position on an issue. First, I would submit that changing your position on a pork-barrell project is not the same as changing your position on a war or funding troops. But even if you assume this line from Mr. Fournier is true… so what? She TURNED DOWN federal money (read your tax dollars and my tax dollars) because she didn’t feel the project was necessary or responsible. Sounds like the kind of judgment we want from our elected officials who spend our money. But its not exactly a flip-flop anyway. During the campaign she said she was open to alternatives to the bridge project, and when the cost estimates rose to $400 million and above, she decided it was only responsible to look to more fiscally responsible options.
Of course I can’t rebut Mr. Fournier, Katie Couric, Campbell Brown or all the rest of the ridiculous liberal media taking shots at Sarah Palin as good as Peggy Noonan can… always elevating the debate… always showing class.
The mainstream media, which has been holding endless symposia here on the future of media in the 21st century, is in danger of missing a central fact of that future: If they appear, once again, as they have in the past, to be people not reporting the battle but engaged in the battle, if they allow themselves to be tagged by that old tag, which so tarnished them in the past, they will do more to imperil their own future than the Internet has.
This is true: fact is king. Information is king. Great reporting is what every honest person wants now, it’s the one ironic thing we have less of in journalism than we need. But reporting that carries an agenda, that carries Bubblehead assumptions and puts them forth as obvious truths? Well, some people want that. But if I were doing a business model for broadsheets and broadcast networks I’d say: Fact and data are our product, we’re putting everything into reporting, that’s what we’re selling, interpretation is the reader’s job, and think pieces are for the edit page where we put the hardy, blabby hacks.
That was a long way of saying: Dig deep into Sarah Palin, get all you can, talk to everybody, get every vote, every quote, tell us of her career and life, she may be the next vice president. But don’t play games. And leave her kid alone, bitch.
In regards to Peggy Noonan (who actually is one of my favorite pundits, even before this gem):
Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan and former John McCain adviser, Time columnist, and MSNBC contributor Mike Murphy were caught on tape disparaging John McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate.
“It’s over,” Noonan said.
When Chuck Todd asked her if this was the most qualified woman the Republicans could nominate, Noonan responded, “The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives. Every time the Republicans do that, because that’s not where they live and that’s not what they’re good at, they blow it.”
Murphy characterized the choices as “cynical” and “gimmicky.”
She’s right.
I adore Peggy Noonan. Maybe she wasn’t as familiar with Sarah Palin the way some of us were. I learned about Gov. Palin months ago from people I respect and she has been mentioned here LONG before she was named VP. I researched her on my own long before her selection, and the more I learned the more I liked. (And NO, I didn’t learn about Sarah Palin from Rush Limbaugh… until last week I had heard a sum total of no more than 20 minutes of his program cumulatively over the last year or two)
But whether Ms. Noonan knew of Sarah Palin or not, doesn’t change the fact that I believe her quote above is what is “cynical”. If someone from the old boys in the RNC picked Gov Palin, I might give it a little more credence, but there is no doubt that John McCain doesn’t get his marching orders from the old boys. Nor does he get it from true conservatives, libertarians, or the religious right. Does she offer some contrast as a woman? Sure… but she also offers real experience and the potential of real reform. Am excited that its not some other white guy on the ticket… absolutely. I don’t make any bones about that. The problem is you guys promote for symbolism, but we promote only when the symbolism is also right. As I’ve written about before when I supported Bobby Jindal (still do, that guy is great)… the only way to fight the symbolism of the Obama campaign is with some symbolism of our own… but if you peel both symbols away you must have something left. Our VP does, yours Presidential pick does not.
What does your guy offer? He is from the historically corrupt Chicago political machine and he has never done anything of note other than run for office. In his time in the Illinois state legislature he voted present on countless heated issues… only when he wanted to vote for infanticide did he take a position.
He even knows his own experience is a joke… that’s why he compared campaigning… CAMPAIGNING… to Governor Palin’s executive experience… and in that comparison he neglected her time as Governor.
Give me a break. And Will, I won’t presume to know how you feel about the coverage, which is what this post was actually about… but step back and consider if it was your mom, your sister, or your wife/girlfriend that was being treated like this. The media has spread the smears from the liberal left, questioning the paternity of her children… saying she should stay at home and raise her kids… calling her white trash for her earrings… suggesting she is anti-semetic because she once wore a button supporting a Pat Buchanan campaign… etc. Its ridiculous and its wrong.
And while the media does all of this against the VICE PRESIDENTIAL nominee on the right, they still refuse to question Barack Obama’s associations with terrorist William Ayers or Joe Biden’s brother and son who are facing charges of their own. They are off limits, but the woman on the right is fair game?
The truth is, the media is just pissed they didn’t know this was coming. If they paid attention to blogs on the right and not just the blogs on the left they would have known who Sarah Palin was and what she had done. But they didn’t know… and they are bitter. And they’re bitter that the glass ceiling will be finally broken by a Republican woman and not one of their own.
When you guys nominate a leftist with absolutely no executive experience, who has accomplished nothing other than writing a couple books… who is carried through the primaries into his acceptance speech with stories of the “historical” nature of his candidacy, race-baiting and dirty tricks… then you can’t make any accusations of a “cynical” or “gimmicky” pick… you guys already got that hands down.
By the way… if it is just “cynical” and “gimmicky” than I guess I am just stupid for falling for it. But you KNOW that isn’t true.
And I’d bet with some certainty that at least a few people you know are also as excited over Governor Palin as I am… if not more. I doubt you think they are stupid either.
So if we are not stupid, then there must be something more to this Sarah Palin pick than a gimmick, right?
UPDATE: If you respect Ms. Noonan as much as you say, than I would assume you would not question her explanation of the comments you cited. She says they were taken out of context and offers and lengthy and detailed explanation on her WSJ Page called “Open Mic Night at MSNBC”.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122044753790594947.html?mod=rss_opinion_main