I have been patiently enduring the vitriolic attacks against Gov. Palin for days. But yesterday's petty onslaught crossed a line. In an agonizing interview the actor Matt Damon essentially said we need to know whether Gov. Palin believes dinosaurs lived 4,000 years ago (because of her Christian beliefs) if we are to determine her suitability for office. And then we hear Rep. (D) Steve Cohen with this statement on the floor of the House:
"I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the parties have differences, but if you want change, you want the Democratic Party. Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor."
Donna Brazile picked up the Jesus/Pilate reference and ran with it.
In response to Damon, Gov. Palin should say that the question of when dinosaurs lived is above her pay grade. Cohen should be reminded that Pres. Clinton was a governor too.
Gov. Palin's only "crime" appears to be her status as a hard scrabble conservative Republican mother. This article by Pat Buchanan puts things in perspective.
If you have heard some cheap shots and wish to vent, post about it here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
oh that is unbelieveable! i had heard some back and forth about the whole service stuff that obama is now playing up to like he single handedly feed a third world country or something. i had no idea that she was essentially compared to Pilot! I think I was mentioning this to Alan, it's like there are no more lines or barriers to what people and the media will say. what i am finding so nauseating, is obama's cliche, and generic responses to questions. they are so dripping in politician i almost feel grimy afterwards. he was on bill o'reily the other night and i also saw him last night on msnbc and i swear it's like he has been reading the "Politicians for Dummies" book or something!
well, i don't know if that rant was coherent, but i do feel better! thanks!
As hard as it is to listen the inflammatory rhetoric of those who recognize the tremendous threat Sara Palin presents to the Obama camp, I think the advise of Gamaliel will serve us best;
“Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”
Acts 5:35 - 39
Yesterday, on the View, McCain was ambushed. His hostesses claimed he had been lying about Obama. The interview on the View was front page news today with the subtitle, "Straight Talk" Runs off Course. Well, let's take a look.
The women on the View claim McCain lied in his ads which say that Obama's reference to lipstick on a pig was a reference to Palin and that Obama supported sex ed for kindergarten children.
As to the first, it is a matter of opinion whether Obama was referring to Palin, so, by definition, it can't be a lie. We all knew what he meant. As to the second, McCain can show Obama voted for a bill authorizing sex ed for kindergarten children. Now Obama says he only supports educating young children about sex to put them on their guard about inappropriate touching, but McCain is factually correct.
Once again, we see it was the Media that lied, not McCain. The Media even has the women on the View doing it's dirty work.
When it comes to politics, I tend to bow out of discussing it. My fear is that it can drive wedges through friendships, and much like religion, they are heated topics of debate that everyone seems to be a scholar in. With that said, I do want to express my appreciation for Dad's blog in keeping us posted on what the media will spin to us. I really don't have a whole lot of trust worthy sources for the news, or at least agencies that will give the news without the underlining rhetoric that seeps from militant authors who write articles laced with their own political point of view and agenda. It is nice to be able to go to the blog and watch buppa h pick apart something that the media would have us believe to be factual. Keep it coming, and thank you for the informative articles. It is refreshing to have someone voice the corruption that exists on the other side, especially since the media portrays it as the one that will bring change and is without flaw. Even when it does report a negative light on the left, the article seems to be buried deep within the hyperlink network of it's website. Go figure!
what did you think of her interview with charlie gibson? he was driving me insane, but i thought she handled herself so well and very genuine. in my opinion he kept trying to trap her with out of context impossible questions, so i was dually impressed that she really held her own.
Mezo is quite correct about the danger of expressing one's political views, even, or epecially, among family. There is a great risk of souring important relationships.
For this reason I have refrained from expressing my feelings about the candidates themselves, although my leanings are clear.
As for Gibson, all I can say is that he did not question Obama with the same challenging tone or even with similar questions. His bias was plain for all to see. Palin did a good job of responding.
Here is an intersting article on how the Brits view American politics: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4735295.ece
the article was very interesting reading, thank you. i thought the distinctions between obama the politician and obama the speachgiver was very enlightening.
I just saw a 60 Minutes piece in which an interviewer tells McCain he has a stack of pages from an "indepedent reviewer" showing falsehoods in both Obama and McCain campaign ads. Then the interviewer asks McCain how he can endorse such false ads. McCain responds: "We can factually back every ad we produce." Then I see a 60 Minutes interviewer asking Obama about McCain's false ads. But Obama is never asked about his false ads. Hmmm!
More media bias.
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=74063c9d-7cb5-47c9-acf6-53c0c2d88376
The New York Times has turned into such a joke over the last several years when it comes to accurate, unbiased, remotely substantiated news and information. They really just need to make the jump over to entertainment media and stop associating themselves with the press. honestly.
Check out this video. Dosen't it raise an obvious question or two?
http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1
the TRUTH squad?? i don't know if i should roll my eyes or be seriously disturbed. how did you think the debate went? i really tried to be objective, but i think mccain, who could have been a little more personable, all in all, nailed it.
I have to give the win to Obama. He was articulate, knowledgeable, controlled. He also hit McCain with some zingers that McCain just let pass while Obama did an excellent job at defending himself against McCain criticisms. McCain is clearly not a debater. But I think Obama is wrong on the issues.
McCain did a couple of things that I think alienated him from the Right without endearing him to the Left. For example, he started his debate by talking about his good friend Senator Kennedy who was in the hospital. These seemed like a transparent attempt to pander to the Democrats and show he is truly bipartisan. But I suspect the Democrats saw it for what it was. Also, McCain stated that the Republicans went to Washington to fix things but they, the Republicans, were corrupted. But what about the Democrats? Were they corrupted too? This pandering to the Left and crticising his own party is not a way to solidify his base. McCain takes the bipartisan thing a bit too far.
I will note a technique of debating employed by Obama which he surely copied from Bill Clinton. In his debates Clinton would often make statements like: "We need to get these countries talking to each other. We need to secure our borders. We need to provide a secure retirement for our seniors. We need to inprove education for all our children, etc." The beauty of this approach is that no one can disagree with the statements and the debater doesn't have to articulate how he will achieve these lofty goals. In fact, the statements don't really even constitute a commitment.
In effect, they are nothing more than a wish list, like world peace. But as a debating technique, the approach is very powerful. Obama uses it to great effect while McCain seems to not have quite caught on.
that's so interesting, because i would hear obama give these general, lofty and vauge answers and kept thinking that people had to see through the fact that he wasn't actually answering anything; whereas mccain, although not as suave as obama took more of an offense approach, but i at least felt like i was getting specific answers, plans of attack, reasons why he believed things, how issues would get better if handled a certain way. and when they got to foreign affairs i just thought obama couldn't keep up.
i totally agree about the bipartisan stuff. i kept cringing at that. it's going to do him little good to be able to "reach across the aisle" if his own party is kicking him across it from pushing them too far!! i cannot wait for the vice presidential debates this week. honestly i think that will be just as important, and i think people are actually looking forward to that one more than the presidential one!?
Yesterday I was home sick, and so I made the mistake of watching the soaps. Not the ones you would think like "Days of our Lives" or something; but the Network News Stations. As I flipped back and forth to try and find some news not related to the market crashing or the vote in the house regarding the "Wall street Bailout", I started to notice the bias. The vote in the House was over, and it was clear that political lines had been drawn. Before the vote Pelosi, who was in support of this Bill, spoke about the end of an era of the Bush administration. This speech was given right before the vote, a vote which was to be non-partisan and help stop the decline of the U.S. economy. Also interesting to note, this Bill was backed by the White House. Instead of using this unique situation to try and unite a divided congress, she pushed her own political agenda that was laced with cheap shots. What really annoyed me was that Pelosi was giving a press conference after the Bill failed to explain why it did not pass, when it was believed that it would. With her fellow militant subordinates, she stood claiming the Republicans were to blame for the loss... After looking at the vote, it was by no means one parties fault. Both parties voted nay, though the republicans did have more nays in comparison; but the last time I checked, the dems control the House and do not even need the repubs votes. What I find even more distressing, is that all the “news” networks were broadcasting this rhetoric from Pelosi, along with her Lap Dog friends like Barney Frank, uninterrupted for almost 30 minutes. The only News station that tried to balance this out was Fox News, who broadcasted a rebuttal from the House Republican Leader in one of the Capitol's hallways outside the House of Representatives floor. They actually split the screen while still broadcasting Pelosi on the other side. I find it interesting that all other "news" stations decided that this would be the source of information for its viewers when it came to explaining why the Bill failed. This basically consisted of bias party rhetoric and finger pointing, along with cheap shots, smiles, and laughs.
Cheap shots are never-ending. 40% of Democrats voted against the "bail out" bill.
ppeI thought Biden and Palin both did a good job in the debate. Biden was articulate and knowledgeable but it was Palin who capitalized on the glittering generalities Obama used to effect in his debate with McCain: "We need to ...." Very effective.
Palin was on message and equally articulate and knowledgeable, but I think she did a poor job of defending McCain against Biden's attacks and missed many opportunities to clarify misconceptions about the McCain tax plan and more particularly his health plan. Nor did Palin really defend McCain's voting record which Biden noted many times. So, it did seem like there were some missed opportunities there. But overall, Palin defintely showed she is ready for the big league. She also has the edge on likeability.
As the debate ensued, I was a bit surprised that more zingers weren't used. For example, when Biden went on and on about how he can see no difference between McCain and Bush, I thought Biden might wrap it up with: "What's the difference between Bush/Cheney and McCain/Palin? Lipstick!" That would have brought down the house. As for Palin, I was surprised she did not nail Biden on his insistence that a date for withdrawal from Iraq be set. McCain really slammed Obama on this to demonstrate Obama's unfitness to serve as Commander and Chief. I also waited in vain for Palin to bring up the fact that Biden was only one of 5 senators to vote against the Alaska oil pipeline which is a mainstay of our energy program.
I completley agree with your review of the debate. There were times where Palin would talk and I'd mentally cheer and other times, like you said, that she didn't come back and defend critical points and attacks. I also really liked her comment about finger pointing. enough is enough and every administration has mistakes. I did find Biden to be repectable and likeable, but I find it so impressive that Palin has such a likeablity that is just natural and her own.
She kept coming back to energy so often, that's suprising to find that out about Biden and the fact that she didn't bring it up. Overall she definatly held her own.
Here is an article on media bias worth the read. Very telling! This statement says it all:
"But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign."
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1
I really thought the cheap shots would abate after the election, but not so. I just watched a reporter ask Sarah Palin what she had to say about an anonymous call to the media that she didn't know Africa was a continent.
The headline on Yahoo news was: African Incident
If I were her, I would have turned my back on the reporter and walked away without a word. How absurd!
Big Media is set on making sure Palin is never taken seriously.
Post a Comment