I find the continual character assassinations of Sarah Palin by the media with obvious left wing biases quite disgusting. On one hand they urge the reader to consider that the rhetoric has got out of hand, and this climate of fear and hate must be restrained. And then they put the boot in.
So the latest speculations and conjectures by Catherine Philp, [story here] who has a history of writing articles on Palin that stress the negatives and ignore the positives, declares the Arizona shooting the end of Palin's career. "Only the harshest of her opponents truly believes that Mrs Palin can be blamed...", and that would have to include Catherine Philp then, because she casts her spin-bias over the rest of the article. "Mrs Palin's silence may be more than just a simple lack of words..." she opines, after explaining that Palin has been totally and absolutely silent during this tragic time (apart from issuing her condolences, but that doesn't count apparently). Phelp is very angry about the cross hairs over the US states with Democrats in them, apparently so quick to publish her character assassination, she hasn't had the time to research that the Democrats preferred map icon are bulls eyes.
As part of her spade work, she quotes from a Republican source that has a chip on his shoulder about Palin. It's the kind of writing that telegraphs what the writer is thinking: Mrs Palin, you say nothing and I'll call that deafening silence. You say anything, and I'll point out that it is insensitive to speak up at a time when the media focus should be on the victims, not the politicians who "contributed" to the problem.
And as you would expect, the article isn't even original. She's taping into all of the anti-Palin media commentators that want Palin off the scene, using the Arizona tragedy to call it Palin's "turning point". The media want to define this as the "defining moment" for Palin, even when they acknowledge:
What makes her challenge unique is that it comes as a result of a national tragedy in which there is no known connection between anything Palin said or did and the alleged actions of Jared Loughner, who is accused of fatally shooting six and severely wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 13 others.
The progressive left may think they've got a win-win from this situation. Either blame Palin, the Tea Party and the word "right" on this whole affair, or place potentially huge restraints on freedom of speech. Make metaphors using weapons illegal, no less. Because they are above the hatchet jobs. Because they don't engage in character assassination. Because they think this hurts the enemy more than it will hurt them. Because wounding free speech is acceptable collateral damage.
If this is their best shot, they are going to lose the war of words. If they want to tone down the rhetoric though, they themselves have to STFU.
--
No Minister: The Citizens aren't buying it
So the latest speculations and conjectures by Catherine Philp, [story here] who has a history of writing articles on Palin that stress the negatives and ignore the positives, declares the Arizona shooting the end of Palin's career. "Only the harshest of her opponents truly believes that Mrs Palin can be blamed...", and that would have to include Catherine Philp then, because she casts her spin-bias over the rest of the article. "Mrs Palin's silence may be more than just a simple lack of words..." she opines, after explaining that Palin has been totally and absolutely silent during this tragic time (apart from issuing her condolences, but that doesn't count apparently). Phelp is very angry about the cross hairs over the US states with Democrats in them, apparently so quick to publish her character assassination, she hasn't had the time to research that the Democrats preferred map icon are bulls eyes.
As part of her spade work, she quotes from a Republican source that has a chip on his shoulder about Palin. It's the kind of writing that telegraphs what the writer is thinking: Mrs Palin, you say nothing and I'll call that deafening silence. You say anything, and I'll point out that it is insensitive to speak up at a time when the media focus should be on the victims, not the politicians who "contributed" to the problem.
And as you would expect, the article isn't even original. She's taping into all of the anti-Palin media commentators that want Palin off the scene, using the Arizona tragedy to call it Palin's "turning point". The media want to define this as the "defining moment" for Palin, even when they acknowledge:
What makes her challenge unique is that it comes as a result of a national tragedy in which there is no known connection between anything Palin said or did and the alleged actions of Jared Loughner, who is accused of fatally shooting six and severely wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 13 others.
The progressive left may think they've got a win-win from this situation. Either blame Palin, the Tea Party and the word "right" on this whole affair, or place potentially huge restraints on freedom of speech. Make metaphors using weapons illegal, no less. Because they are above the hatchet jobs. Because they don't engage in character assassination. Because they think this hurts the enemy more than it will hurt them. Because wounding free speech is acceptable collateral damage.
If this is their best shot, they are going to lose the war of words. If they want to tone down the rhetoric though, they themselves have to STFU.
--
No Minister: The Citizens aren't buying it
Have a look at No Minister where the latest poll from CBS, of all outfits, shows that 57% of Americans don't believe the propaganda and , worse still for the Doncs, neither do a whopping 49%of their own voters.
ReplyDeleteMrs Palin will come out of it smelling of roses.
This is just insanity, the liberal left have gone off the deep end.
ReplyDeleteThis "happened on Obama's watch" , to coin a phrase, so where is he in all of this?
He is as helpless as the next guy when it comes to irrational behavior from a schizophrenic.
The real discussion people should be having is wwhat can we do l when a fellow such as the culprit in question positively telegraphs he is likely to go off the deep end?
Civil liberties versus community safety an issue which is far harder to deal with in soundbites and thus gets shoved aside in favor of Palin bashing.
Author Michelle Malkin has let them have it with both barrels, detailing the Progressive campaign over the last ten years in an "illustrated primer of 8 parts". LINK
ReplyDeleteLooking back it is easy to see who is doing the hating, and it's not the Republicans. Even number onethe list is shocking, a Getty image of a gunman pointing his weapon at Palin and her daughter (which has since been pulled by Getty and is no longer for sale). I suppose liberals find pictures like this comforting as it gives voice to their innermost desires.
The amazing thing about Malkin is that she received hate mail for writing a book about... liberal hate.
ReplyDeleteYou can see the "endorsements" on the back cover on Google books ;)