I couldn't resist reading former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's book, especially after viewing excerpts of her television blitz on Oprah and Barbara Walters. The book is Palin's effort to reintroduce herself to America, as well as to cash-in on her popularity.
I found the first half of the book to be an interesting account of her childhood in Alaska. I could hear her voice as I read about hunting trips, like one where her father bagged a moose and offered his young daughter the animal’s still warm eyeballs. Outdoors is a vital source of food and entertainment in the largely rural Alaska. National network television programs were not aired live in Alaska back then, rather they were delayed as much as a week. Palin's father didn't want to know the final football scores until he had seen the tape-delayed game. Palin says she developed a love for books because of her mother, reading Jack London's "The Call of The Wild" and "The Wizard of Oz."
When Todd Palin and his family moved to town during high school, she was immediately attracted to him. At one point he tried to kiss her and she ran away. She was embarrassed when Todd told all his friends about the incident. They talked to each other each night via hand held two-way radios until truckers began interrupting their conversations. Todd worked hard to earn money and landed a position in the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay, several hundred miles from Wassila.
On August 29, 1988, they decided to elope, recruiting two residents from an old people's home to witness the ceremony. Palin writes that she and Todd could not stand being away from each other anymore. They celebrated at a nearby Wendy's, and later informed their parents. On April 20, 1989, 7 months and 21 days after they suddenly were married, baby Track was born. Track was named after track, as in Palin was on the track team.
The book begins to shift to her life in politics, starting with council member and later mayor of Wasilla. This is when she says she began knocking heads to hold down costs, wipe out corruption and help small businesses. She began developing enemies who would later come back to haunt her in 2008. She failed in a run at lieutenant governor and then later she was elected governor in a surprise result. As governor she says she continued her focus on costs, reform and investing in energy.
Governor Palin devotes much of the rest of the book to telling her side of the 2008 election; it is payback time. She blames McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt, advisor Nicole Wallace and her husband, Mark (she says he has a terrible temper), and other staffers for most of her problems. She says Nicolle Wallace pushed the Katie Couric interview because the CBS News anchor suffered from low self-esteem. She blames Couric for "gotcha" questions, asking her views of abortion again and again, and leaving her substantive answers on the cutting room floor. "Couric wasn't interested in substance," she wrote. She accuses Couric and the mainstream media of bias.
Palin blames the controversy over her wardrobe on McCain campaign staffers. She insists they wanted her to dispose of her usual outfits and wear expensive designer label clothes. The campaign supplied hair and makeup that she was ordered to undergo, "I always did my own makeup." Her new makeup and wardrobe team had worked with Katie Couric. Press releases went out in her name that she did not write and did not agree with. For instance, the first press release issued after their daughter Bristol's pregnancy became public. Further, she didn't like the responses the McCain campaign prepared for her to rehearse in advance of her debate appearance.
Palin did not agree with McCain's strategy to suspend his campaign for the crashing economy, "that's a strategy the vice president's team didn't agree with." She attacks the campaign team for micromanaging her campaign and making too many mistakes. It should be noted that Schmidt and Wallace deny Palin's charges and Senator John McCain has come out in support of his former staffers.
What is missing in this book are serious in-depth proposals for dealing with foreign policy, or the complicated economic mess the previous administration got this country in to, or how she will significantly reduce unemployment, or cut trillions from the nation's deficit, or reform health care or reduce hunger in America. Instead, what passes for policy with Palin are the standard conservative talking points--lower taxes, lower deficits, less government and a strong defense.
Her bitter sniping throughout the book makes her seem more like a diva than a humble everyday small town girl. She comes off as ambitious and self-consumed, more like Paris Hilton than Clara Barton or Pearl S. Buck, both of whom she admired. Yet there is a populist streak in Sarah Palin that many conservatives embrace. After all, going rogue does have its appeal. And, while Palin is very polarizing, this book does give conservatives hope that she will be a powerful voice on their behalf for years to come.
Yet it will take more than whining for Sarah Palin to begin winning over the rest of America.
Showing posts with label Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palin. Show all posts
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Betcha Gotcha
Never underestimate how much shear chutzpah, ambition and attractiveness can get a person in this day and age. Try at least $1.2 million.
Take former Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin who stands to make a fortune from her personal memoir, "Going Rogue." Meanwhile, a lot of media personalities are capitalizing on her box office drawing power for their own benefit. Only in America!
Palin's 413 page memoir was written at break neck speed with ghostwriter Lynn Vincent, who also helped write “Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party.” HarperCollins, owned by Rupert Murdoch, will publish a first run of 1.5 million copies.
The Associated Press bought a copy of the book and has printed some of the book's most controversial content. This led Palin to criticize AP for "erroneously reporting the contents of the book" in a Facebook sales pitch Friday, and to ask her fans to "keep your powder dry, read the book."
In “Going Rogue” Palin writes about her childhood, her family, Alaska and the 2008 presidential campaign. Palin says she did the interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric as a favor to her because she felt sorry for Couric’s low ratings. She was asked to do so by Nicole Wallace, a senior John McCain presidential campaign adviser and former CBS News consultant.
The Couric interview took place over several days and covered a wide range of topics. In her book, Palin now describes Couric as condescending, biased and "badgering." And she says CBS News left the most substantive content from the interview on the cutting room floor. Palin says she was taken aback by what she calls Couric's "gothca" questions. For instance, this exchange:
"COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news."
This interview was widely viewed, including by members of the McCain/Palin campaign, as devastating for Palin. Since her selection at the Republican convention her popularity had been soaring. The Couric interview was a turning point in the 2008 presidential election.
Friday, CBS News President Sean McManus reacted to Palin’s charges, "In this case, I really do think that the quality of the interview and the quality of the questions speak for themselves." He went on, "It's really difficult for me to think that any of the questions were unfair or any of them were questions that a vice presidential candidate shouldn't be expected to receive."
Palin also criticizes ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson for his arrogance and line of questioning. For instance:
"GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."
Of course, the "Bush doctrine" was well covered by all the newspapers and news magazines for weeks before and after the Iraq war. This wasn't a trick question, nor was the question he asked that led her to observe you can see Russia from Alaska. Nor was the question two weeks later by Couric asking what newspaper's Palin read "to understand the world."
In "Going Rogue" Palin also criticizes the McCain campaign for keeping her bottled up, for making her pay $50,000 in "vetting" expenses, making her wear fancy clothes and mishandling her teen daughter's pregnancy announcement. Particularly noteworthy is that her almost son-in-law, Levi Johnson, is not mentioned in the book.
Now Governor Palin takes her book campaign on the road. Beginning with Grand Rapids, Michigan, she will visit states that any aspiring Republican presidential candidate would target. She has television interviews with Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters and Rush Limbaugh. And then she runs the gauntlet on Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdoch), Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren.
Remember, no gotcha questions, please!
Take former Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin who stands to make a fortune from her personal memoir, "Going Rogue." Meanwhile, a lot of media personalities are capitalizing on her box office drawing power for their own benefit. Only in America!
Palin's 413 page memoir was written at break neck speed with ghostwriter Lynn Vincent, who also helped write “Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party.” HarperCollins, owned by Rupert Murdoch, will publish a first run of 1.5 million copies.
The Associated Press bought a copy of the book and has printed some of the book's most controversial content. This led Palin to criticize AP for "erroneously reporting the contents of the book" in a Facebook sales pitch Friday, and to ask her fans to "keep your powder dry, read the book."
In “Going Rogue” Palin writes about her childhood, her family, Alaska and the 2008 presidential campaign. Palin says she did the interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric as a favor to her because she felt sorry for Couric’s low ratings. She was asked to do so by Nicole Wallace, a senior John McCain presidential campaign adviser and former CBS News consultant.
The Couric interview took place over several days and covered a wide range of topics. In her book, Palin now describes Couric as condescending, biased and "badgering." And she says CBS News left the most substantive content from the interview on the cutting room floor. Palin says she was taken aback by what she calls Couric's "gothca" questions. For instance, this exchange:
"COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news."
This interview was widely viewed, including by members of the McCain/Palin campaign, as devastating for Palin. Since her selection at the Republican convention her popularity had been soaring. The Couric interview was a turning point in the 2008 presidential election.
Friday, CBS News President Sean McManus reacted to Palin’s charges, "In this case, I really do think that the quality of the interview and the quality of the questions speak for themselves." He went on, "It's really difficult for me to think that any of the questions were unfair or any of them were questions that a vice presidential candidate shouldn't be expected to receive."
Palin also criticizes ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson for his arrogance and line of questioning. For instance:
"GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."
Of course, the "Bush doctrine" was well covered by all the newspapers and news magazines for weeks before and after the Iraq war. This wasn't a trick question, nor was the question he asked that led her to observe you can see Russia from Alaska. Nor was the question two weeks later by Couric asking what newspaper's Palin read "to understand the world."
In "Going Rogue" Palin also criticizes the McCain campaign for keeping her bottled up, for making her pay $50,000 in "vetting" expenses, making her wear fancy clothes and mishandling her teen daughter's pregnancy announcement. Particularly noteworthy is that her almost son-in-law, Levi Johnson, is not mentioned in the book.
Now Governor Palin takes her book campaign on the road. Beginning with Grand Rapids, Michigan, she will visit states that any aspiring Republican presidential candidate would target. She has television interviews with Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters and Rush Limbaugh. And then she runs the gauntlet on Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdoch), Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren.
Remember, no gotcha questions, please!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Election Day 2009
The Republican Party enjoyed two key victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races thus halting the Democrat's momentum. While the results should concern the White House, Republicans have plenty to worry about as well.
It is a truism in politics that after a party wins the White House it loses ground in midterm elections. For example, take New Jersey. Democrats had hoped that President Barack Obama's continued popularity would lift Governor Jon Corzine across the finish line. But Gov. Corzine was a weak candidate who spent a personal fortune on a largely negative campaign. Exit Polls indicate that 60% of those interviewed said President Obama was not a factor in their decision. And those who said he was a factor split evenly on the question between negative and positive.
It was just one year ago that young as well as minority voters poured into voting booths in record numbers across the nation inspired by a very special candidate with a powerful message of change. Yesterday, according to exit polls, a majority of voters in both New Jersey and Virginia said President Obama had no impact on their vote. In fact, turnout was low in most of the elections yesterday. The young and minority voters were not motivated enough to come out and vote. Is this a symptom of a bigger problem for Democrats in 2010? Could the president have had a favorable impact had he delivered on his pledge to change Washington, even just a little?
Many Americans voted for President Obama because they wanted change. The economy had been nearly destroyed by financial institutions that were running up record profits on questionable and unregulated trading practices. Now some of these surviving financial institutions, backed taxpayer money, have returned to business as usual. There has been little or no new regulation for this system. Yet millions of Americans are still hurting. Foreclosures continue to increase and unemployment is stuck around an unacceptable 10%.
Many Americans were looking for change in Washington, an end of politics as usual. Yet the raucous debate over health care, the powerful role of special interests and the focus on short term political gains these past few months proves Washington is not ready for reform. Hope for change has been doused with a bucket of cold reality.
Deficits are climbing at record levels and will be passed on to our children. And Americans fear that tax increases and terrible inflation lurks right around the corner. This as they cope with the nightmare of two wars. US soldiers are dying in Iraq, an unnecessary war, and Afghanistan, where there is still no clear strategy for victory or a respectful withdrawal. Today most Afghans view Americans as occupiers, just as they did the Soviets and the English.
Meanwhile, the far left and the far right have become more intense and much louder. The differences have sharpened; the knives have been drawn. It is more than political; it has now become personal. The vast middle, teeming with independents who had sided with President Obama, are being tossed about the main deck as the ship of state is being buffeted by the bluster of partisanship. All of this is being intensified by cable news and bloggers.
The Republicans should be sitting in the catbird seat. Except they have become the party of no, and are now embroiled in their own civil war. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steel and some moderates are now up against the conservative wing led by Former Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Tim Pawlenty and Rush Limbaugh. Never mind that President Ronald Reagan's success was the result of a broad coalition of traditional Republicans and independents. The party came apart in New York's 23rd Congressional District, where conservatives threw their support to a conservative who doesn't even live in the district. The result was a nearly unprecedented win for the Democrats.
There are a few takeaways from yesterday's election. First, for the White House: focus on the economy. Where are the jobs? Where is the financial regulation? Where are the promised budget cuts to lower the country's deficit spending? If there is not some tangible progress with America's economy by 2010 President Obama will be a drag on many Democrats in tightly contested districts.
Second, Governor Corzine: you can't win an election with negative ads when you have nothing positive to say about your own record. In fact, negative ads never work in the long run, even when you do outspend your opponent three to one. It is possible that you will be best remembered as the Governor who attacked his opponent's waistline.
Third, Republicans: what were you thinking in New York's 23rd Congressional District. You managed to cause a backlash in a predominantly Republican district, called national attention to your inept management and brought light to your internal battles.
And finally, no wonder most eligible voters decided not to participate on election day.
It is a truism in politics that after a party wins the White House it loses ground in midterm elections. For example, take New Jersey. Democrats had hoped that President Barack Obama's continued popularity would lift Governor Jon Corzine across the finish line. But Gov. Corzine was a weak candidate who spent a personal fortune on a largely negative campaign. Exit Polls indicate that 60% of those interviewed said President Obama was not a factor in their decision. And those who said he was a factor split evenly on the question between negative and positive.
It was just one year ago that young as well as minority voters poured into voting booths in record numbers across the nation inspired by a very special candidate with a powerful message of change. Yesterday, according to exit polls, a majority of voters in both New Jersey and Virginia said President Obama had no impact on their vote. In fact, turnout was low in most of the elections yesterday. The young and minority voters were not motivated enough to come out and vote. Is this a symptom of a bigger problem for Democrats in 2010? Could the president have had a favorable impact had he delivered on his pledge to change Washington, even just a little?
Many Americans voted for President Obama because they wanted change. The economy had been nearly destroyed by financial institutions that were running up record profits on questionable and unregulated trading practices. Now some of these surviving financial institutions, backed taxpayer money, have returned to business as usual. There has been little or no new regulation for this system. Yet millions of Americans are still hurting. Foreclosures continue to increase and unemployment is stuck around an unacceptable 10%.
Many Americans were looking for change in Washington, an end of politics as usual. Yet the raucous debate over health care, the powerful role of special interests and the focus on short term political gains these past few months proves Washington is not ready for reform. Hope for change has been doused with a bucket of cold reality.
Deficits are climbing at record levels and will be passed on to our children. And Americans fear that tax increases and terrible inflation lurks right around the corner. This as they cope with the nightmare of two wars. US soldiers are dying in Iraq, an unnecessary war, and Afghanistan, where there is still no clear strategy for victory or a respectful withdrawal. Today most Afghans view Americans as occupiers, just as they did the Soviets and the English.
Meanwhile, the far left and the far right have become more intense and much louder. The differences have sharpened; the knives have been drawn. It is more than political; it has now become personal. The vast middle, teeming with independents who had sided with President Obama, are being tossed about the main deck as the ship of state is being buffeted by the bluster of partisanship. All of this is being intensified by cable news and bloggers.
The Republicans should be sitting in the catbird seat. Except they have become the party of no, and are now embroiled in their own civil war. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steel and some moderates are now up against the conservative wing led by Former Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Tim Pawlenty and Rush Limbaugh. Never mind that President Ronald Reagan's success was the result of a broad coalition of traditional Republicans and independents. The party came apart in New York's 23rd Congressional District, where conservatives threw their support to a conservative who doesn't even live in the district. The result was a nearly unprecedented win for the Democrats.
There are a few takeaways from yesterday's election. First, for the White House: focus on the economy. Where are the jobs? Where is the financial regulation? Where are the promised budget cuts to lower the country's deficit spending? If there is not some tangible progress with America's economy by 2010 President Obama will be a drag on many Democrats in tightly contested districts.
Second, Governor Corzine: you can't win an election with negative ads when you have nothing positive to say about your own record. In fact, negative ads never work in the long run, even when you do outspend your opponent three to one. It is possible that you will be best remembered as the Governor who attacked his opponent's waistline.
Third, Republicans: what were you thinking in New York's 23rd Congressional District. You managed to cause a backlash in a predominantly Republican district, called national attention to your inept management and brought light to your internal battles.
And finally, no wonder most eligible voters decided not to participate on election day.
Friday, October 3, 2008
O'Biden vs. McPalin
Senator Joe Biden was the experienced statesman and Governor Sarah Palin showed she is a very capable performer in their debate. Biden renewed the confidence of Democrats, many of whom were concerned he would make a gaffe. Palin redeemed herself among her supporters, many of whom were shaken by a recent series of disastrous television interviews.
Governor Palin seems to seldom lack confidence, especially when she is well prepared with campaign talking points. Her folksy demeanor is very appealing. Speaking to "Joe Six Pack" and "hockey moms across the nation," she tried to connect with Middle America using lines like, "it's so obvious I am a Washington outsider." She even winked into the camera a couple times and scolded her opponent like a local PTA mom, "Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again."
But Palin found herself pointing back to her record as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and her time as governor. "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear," she said to Senator Biden, "but I am going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also." Of course, a month ago most Americans had never heard of Sarah Palin. She even admitted to the moderator, "And how long have I been at this, like five weeks." Long enough, though, to land a tough punch on Obama and Biden, "Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today."
For his part, Senator Biden seemed a bit stiff at first. No doubt, he was very sensitive about making a mistake or coming off as condescending. But Biden successfully countered Palin's attacks on Obama, which accused him of wanting tax increases, failing to support the surge in Iraq and voting against funding U.S. troops. "John McCain voted to cut off funding for the troops," Biden retorted, "let me say that again, John McCain voted against (it)." And on Palin's praise of McCain as a reformer and "real maverick," Biden pounced, "he's not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around the kitchen table."
Governor Sarah Palin is smart, fresh and energetic. She is clearly ambitious and driven. Senator Joe Biden has tremendous experience on foreign affairs as well as on domestic issues. He has a long record of accomplishment in the U.S. Senate. Both come from small town America at very different times and from two very different regions of the country.
It is now pretty clear that the vice presidential candidates will not be a deciding factor in this election, even though they both exceeded their low expectations for the debate. Nonetheless, give careful consideration to which of these candidates is best prepared to step in for the president in the event of a terrorist attack against this nation or a major international crisis. God forbid that it should ever be necessary, but think about it.
Governor Palin seems to seldom lack confidence, especially when she is well prepared with campaign talking points. Her folksy demeanor is very appealing. Speaking to "Joe Six Pack" and "hockey moms across the nation," she tried to connect with Middle America using lines like, "it's so obvious I am a Washington outsider." She even winked into the camera a couple times and scolded her opponent like a local PTA mom, "Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again."
But Palin found herself pointing back to her record as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and her time as governor. "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear," she said to Senator Biden, "but I am going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also." Of course, a month ago most Americans had never heard of Sarah Palin. She even admitted to the moderator, "And how long have I been at this, like five weeks." Long enough, though, to land a tough punch on Obama and Biden, "Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today."
For his part, Senator Biden seemed a bit stiff at first. No doubt, he was very sensitive about making a mistake or coming off as condescending. But Biden successfully countered Palin's attacks on Obama, which accused him of wanting tax increases, failing to support the surge in Iraq and voting against funding U.S. troops. "John McCain voted to cut off funding for the troops," Biden retorted, "let me say that again, John McCain voted against (it)." And on Palin's praise of McCain as a reformer and "real maverick," Biden pounced, "he's not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around the kitchen table."
Governor Sarah Palin is smart, fresh and energetic. She is clearly ambitious and driven. Senator Joe Biden has tremendous experience on foreign affairs as well as on domestic issues. He has a long record of accomplishment in the U.S. Senate. Both come from small town America at very different times and from two very different regions of the country.
It is now pretty clear that the vice presidential candidates will not be a deciding factor in this election, even though they both exceeded their low expectations for the debate. Nonetheless, give careful consideration to which of these candidates is best prepared to step in for the president in the event of a terrorist attack against this nation or a major international crisis. God forbid that it should ever be necessary, but think about it.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Palin has Punch!
Governor Sarah Pailin's performance last night was a tour de force. She has lifted the clouds of uncertainty for Republicans and given them new hope. But will she be a shooting star, or will she become a permanent light on the national stage?
Republicans had a very good night Wednesday, culminating with the official nomination of Senator John McCain. Speaker after speaker landed tough punches against their opponents and lauded praise on McCain's service to his country. There was more red meat served up last night in the St. Paul Convention Center than in the Oklahoma Stockyards.
Republicans have launched their own surge in an effort to put the focus back on Obama's lack of service because it is their best chance of winning. The Democrats have responded by putting the spotlight on the economic failings of the past eight years and tying it squarely to President Bush and, by association, John McCain.
Last night's convention was truly energizing and exciting. But some of the so-called "facts" presented by Republican speakers about the Democrats were inaccurate, most distasteful and reflective of mean-spirited partisan politics at its worst. Also, right out of the Karl Rove/Richard Nixon political playbook, Republicans deployed the old blame the "liberal" media gambit.
Governor Sarah Palin's selection was huge! She was a surprise pick and few Americans had even heard her name before last Friday. Of course, the media went into overdrive to fill the information vacuum. She had not been intensely vetted by the McCain campaign until just before the announcement of her selection. There are still legitimate questions to be pursued about whether she abused her power as Governor, about her use of lobbyists and earmarks, whether she was for the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it, did she reform government, or even if she truly qualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency.
Sadly, a handful of blogs raised vicious and inaccurate rumors. And the National Enquirer, which sunk John Edwards, is now hot after a story involving Governor Palin’s personal life. The Internet has changed the landscape and users must be cautious about what they read on the web. I would argue that the “established” or “mainstream media” actually provides the country a great service by thoroughly investigating information and killing the smears.
Now Senator McCain, in the spirit of bipartisan unity, will your campaign end its silence and unequivocally denounce all the vicious and inaccurate rumors constantly being spread by bloggers about Obama? Or is that a bridge to nowhere?
Republicans had a very good night Wednesday, culminating with the official nomination of Senator John McCain. Speaker after speaker landed tough punches against their opponents and lauded praise on McCain's service to his country. There was more red meat served up last night in the St. Paul Convention Center than in the Oklahoma Stockyards.
Republicans have launched their own surge in an effort to put the focus back on Obama's lack of service because it is their best chance of winning. The Democrats have responded by putting the spotlight on the economic failings of the past eight years and tying it squarely to President Bush and, by association, John McCain.
Last night's convention was truly energizing and exciting. But some of the so-called "facts" presented by Republican speakers about the Democrats were inaccurate, most distasteful and reflective of mean-spirited partisan politics at its worst. Also, right out of the Karl Rove/Richard Nixon political playbook, Republicans deployed the old blame the "liberal" media gambit.
Governor Sarah Palin's selection was huge! She was a surprise pick and few Americans had even heard her name before last Friday. Of course, the media went into overdrive to fill the information vacuum. She had not been intensely vetted by the McCain campaign until just before the announcement of her selection. There are still legitimate questions to be pursued about whether she abused her power as Governor, about her use of lobbyists and earmarks, whether she was for the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it, did she reform government, or even if she truly qualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency.
Sadly, a handful of blogs raised vicious and inaccurate rumors. And the National Enquirer, which sunk John Edwards, is now hot after a story involving Governor Palin’s personal life. The Internet has changed the landscape and users must be cautious about what they read on the web. I would argue that the “established” or “mainstream media” actually provides the country a great service by thoroughly investigating information and killing the smears.
Now Senator McCain, in the spirit of bipartisan unity, will your campaign end its silence and unequivocally denounce all the vicious and inaccurate rumors constantly being spread by bloggers about Obama? Or is that a bridge to nowhere?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)