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