|
Post by bruce on Jul 6, 2009 20:14:25 GMT -5
Who exactly was attacking Trig Palin? I'll check it out, but I suspect they are anonymous bloggers, andf should be condemned. I specifically said any recognized, known liberal. I can provide you with hundreds of attacks on both Michelle and Barack Obama , and a few against the children.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jul 6, 2009 20:40:51 GMT -5
turk-I took your advise and googled Trig Palin, and as I expected, there is little there. About half of the results were POSITIVE stories about the child. The majority of the rest were about who the mother really is or whether she should have had the child. The anti-Trig results were regarding something called "Wonkette" and/or a Linda Kellen Biegel, aka "Celtic Diva". I know nothing about either one, but after viewing the photoshopped pictures of Trig, they are disgusting. I have a relative with mild Down's Syndrome so I know the challenges, he is my sister's grandchild and I love him dearly. The point is, as I first stated, there is NOT widespread savaging of Trig Palin, I condemn it most strongly. I went through ten pages of results and saw only right wing sites talking about Wonkette and the "Celtic Diva"
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jul 6, 2009 20:55:21 GMT -5
Who exactly was attacking Trig Palin? I'll check it out, but I suspect they are anonymous bloggers, andf should be condemned. I specifically said any recognized, known liberal. I can provide you with hundreds of attacks on both Michelle and Barack Obama , and a few against the children. Bruce, I respect your honesty and honorable position about this situation. I agree that attacks against Obama's wife and children are just as evil. I have held, much the same as you, that family of a politician is off limits. The only exception is when a politician's adult family members make spectacles of themselves. If you slip your own head into a noose, don't complain if it chaffs your neck. Michelle and most certainly the children have not since inauguration. It won't fly with me if attacks happen... like I said before- New York was what a husband does. London, too. Wives do the same thing. We do not elect presidents and then expect that they ignore their loved ones. Any chance you could get some on your side to look into honor, decency, maybe a little decorum? I would promise the same- regardless!
|
|
|
Post by dj on Jul 7, 2009 0:25:12 GMT -5
If she has been called a prostitute or something like that, there's your definition of "character assassination". Sarah Palin hits: Trailer Trash 53,000 Prostitute 646,000 Obviously some links are bogus, but I followed a few even a CNN reporter called her a prostitute. Paul Begala, the architect of several Democratic election campaigns including Bill Clinton’s, and now a CNN commentator, likens Sarah Palin to a prostitute.A CNN reporter did NOT call Sarah Palin a prostitute. In fact, he also did not liken her to one either. The quote you give above is a blog comment about an article written by CNN analyst Paul Begala. The blog comment is making the assertion that Begala "likens" Sarah Palin to a prostitute by the headline of his article, which is "Sarah Palin Turns Pro". The only way the blog commenter can make such an asinine assertion, though, is if the blog commenter has no idea of the meaning of Hunter S. Thompson's famous observation "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro", which observation by the way Begala quotes at the beginning of the article he wrote. His entire article is how, in resigning with no particularly clear reason, and in explaining her move in no particularly clear logic, Sarah Palin has just out-weirded all the other recently weird politicians on the landscape. Begala is not even insinuating a "prostitution" angle, let alone calling anyone such a thing. Suffice to say that was a sloppppppy example on your part. You might want to stop claiming a CNN reporter called her that. Now, about the billion or two bloggers - meaning NON-media types, the hecklers, basically - calling Palin names, this is not even related to my point. My point being, "character assassination" is an act where someone, through lies and aggressively malicious tactics, makes a compelling argument that someone else is of salacious or unsavory character. Bloggers say stuff. They say it about Palin, they say it about the Obamas. We've all heard it. Michelle said "whitey", Barack is a Muslim, Palin's kid is really her kid's kid. But this is not "character assassination". This is just blog buffoonery. NO media, including the CNN reporter, have called Sarah Palin a prosititute; please take my point for what it actually means. We were talking about the big bad media. Supposedly they all engaged in "character assassination". I call bull. Troopergate was a real issue. The spending spree and taking per diems for staying home 300+ days, were real. Todd Palin's membership in a secessionist group, was real. If anyone wants to persist in calling the reporting of those real issues "character assassination", they should know they look foolish.
|
|
|
Post by dj on Jul 7, 2009 0:47:02 GMT -5
It is suddenly occurring to me to point out a blurring of two very distinct discussions which are going on here.
1. There is an argument here that the reports about Sarah Palin's possibly questionable actions in Alaska and on the campaign trail last year, are nothing more than hateful and unwarranted attacks on her. "Character assassination". And my answer to that is that while there are certainly some haters saying things about Palin, that fact does not dissolve the very real questions that were being asked about her actions.
2. There is a second parallel argument going on here about attacking Palin's family. This, I repeat, is a secondary and virtually unrelated line of discussion because the points and counterpoints about this discussion are simply about disparaging remarks in either the blogosphere or on CNN, NBC, and so on, and about where the line should be drawn regarding family members or about Sarah's personal life. The MAIN distinction to remember is that this whole category is entirely unrelated to questions about Sarah's ethics, or her knowledge of foreign policy or whether she really reads newspapers and so on, which all belong to category 1 above.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jul 7, 2009 16:02:30 GMT -5
DJ, with all due respect, I think you are completely wrong about bifurcating the discussions. They are wheels of a freight train called Smear running on parallel tracks.
The indecency of even reporting speculation about whose disabled baby is whose was not merely reporting on rumors- it was propagating them. The splashing of very personal matters of people not even running for public office during the campaign was designed to shape public opinion. The constant replaying of Feye's "I can see Russia..." in various media and entertainment outlets was a part of that smear. It was a smear because, although a liberal journalist verified that one can see Russia from Alaska, it was used as a tool for ridicule about a serious discussion about US defense.
Why is so much more money put into jokes and petty remarks than in investigations of "possible" (WTF!?) wrongdoing? It's because you go with what brings the ratings and right now, the childish ranting of far too many on the left is what brings in the bacon.
If the early days of reports about John the Plumber is not evidence enough, including the illegal publishing of private information, is not evidence enough, I would conclude that bias is made of titanium, shiny, but unbreakable.
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Jul 7, 2009 17:19:56 GMT -5
The vilification of Sarah Palin has become an interesting study in current American politics. Personally, I hope she takes some time with her family and then goes out on the circuit and makes a shit load of money beyond the reported half-to-a million debt she has accrued to defend all the so far defunct ethics charges.
I think she could be quite a draw to the tea parties who are attracting the growing number of independents who don't like the direction of either parties.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jul 7, 2009 18:41:51 GMT -5
That might well be the direction Mrs. Palin is heading... creation of a new party with a following from all those who dislike both existing. Not bad.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jul 7, 2009 19:37:02 GMT -5
One of the ideas being thrown around is that she is going to head a third party. This will guaranty the re-election of Obama, so I'm all for it. Another theory gaining prominence is a talk show during prime time on FOX. Big $$. There she can preach to the choir.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jul 7, 2009 19:52:06 GMT -5
...Another theory gaining prominence is a talk show during prime time on FOX. Big $$. There she can preach to the choir. And that's a god thing, right? Our choir has been somewhat out of tune. It started harmonic discombobulation in the last administration, I'll admit. We pretty much had to give up acapella altogether when we somehow nominated McCain to make the White House run. Old news. My bad. But, at least Bruce, you have shown me the light. Gallop seems to be somewhat objective after all. Check this out! <-click me! The VOR's and similar characters of the world need not fear our saying "Be afraid, be very afraid!". We will still be willing to fund your medication.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jul 7, 2009 20:13:39 GMT -5
One of the ideas being thrown around is that she is going to head a third party. This will guaranty the re-election of Obama, so I'm all for it. Another theory gaining prominence is a talk show during prime time on FOX. Big $$. There she can preach to the choir. Collusion abounds perhaps one of the few agreements. Left and right will sue forever to stop a third party. Ultimately it would be the demise of both, how poetic a frontiersmen like Palin makes it happen.
|
|
|
Post by dj on Jul 7, 2009 22:32:22 GMT -5
DJ, with all due respect, I think you are completely wrong about bifurcating the discussions. Hatch, I agree with you that smear is smear, and unsubstantiated rumors being pointed at defenseless children is downright sleazy. Don't get me wrong. I'll shrink my point down to a sentence because I really think some clarity is necessary: As much smear as there is, Sarah Palin and her defenders can NOT claim that serious questioning of her finances or possible abuses of power, are nothing more than hateful smear. Does that make sense? There are some real questions, and there are multiple questionable instances of playing fast and loose with the rules with certain issues like charging the state of Alaska for taking her kids to events and then later amending her filings to say the kids were conducting an official function of some sort. Does it rise to the point of crime? Ethics violations? Don't know. BUT investigating the issue is not a product of vicious character assassination, it's a matter of the rules and laws and the requirement for her as a public servant to abide by them. Do the haters love it? Of course they do. They hoot and hollar and look like idiots. But that doesn't mean the questions aren't real. Fair?
|
|
|
Post by Sadie on Jul 7, 2009 23:25:39 GMT -5
Does anyone on this blog really want Sarah Palin as President? She is Gov of Alaska for 2-1/2 years and can't stand the heat that she herself created and has to quit.
She is just a mouthpiece of social conservatives. There are very, very few Independents or Democrats who will vote for her.
She's best placed on Fox News so that America can laugh at her. But maybe she's too educated to be on Fox News.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jul 8, 2009 2:30:56 GMT -5
Palin returns to work, defends decision to resign
some excerpts:
In an interview with The Associated Press, Palin defended her decision to step down after a year in which she has been bombarded with a series of ethics complaints and publics records requests that have cost the state nearly $2 million to investigate, according to a tally provided by the governor's office Tuesday.
"You would be amazed at how much time and resource my staff and I, the Department of Law especially, spend on this every day," she said. "It is a waste. We are spending these millions of dollars not on teachers and troopers and roads or fish research and other things that are needed in Alaska."
She has not said what she will do next, but a book deal is in the works. When asked if she will run for president, Palin responded, "That's certainly not within my immediate plans."
************************ It sounds like she has a sound reason for resigning. The constant investigations & complaints is hampering her and her staffs ability to do their work AND it is costing the state a large sum of money that could be used elsewhere. For the sake of the state, she is giving up her job. She has been investigated with a fine tooth comb and it ALL STARTED the day after it was announced she was the VP choice of McCain. She became such a threat that after the campaign the digs continue at great cost to the state. I doubt that any other governor would have any fewer given the same scrutiny that she has. I also question if some of the investigations are not excuses to cover a sexist agenda! It can't be dismissed, it is just as reasonable as some of the things she has been investigated for.
Again, I would not vote for her as a president but I do like some of her political ideas. I like the idea that she is not a "city kid" too!
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jul 8, 2009 6:55:05 GMT -5
Does anyone on this blog really want Sarah Palin as President? She is Gov of Alaska for 2-1/2 years and can't stand the heat that she herself created and has to quit. She is just a mouthpiece of social conservatives. There are very, very few Independents or Democrats who will vote for her. She's best placed on Fox News so that America can laugh at her. But maybe she's too educated to be on Fox News. Great post, Sadie. Join up and help the few sensible folks here fight the fight.
|
|