In a copyright story published by the Associated Press, they say, in part:
Palin blasts reports on her children; experts say former VP candidate can't have it both ways
"Governor Palin is going on the offensive against news organizations and bloggers she says are spreading malicious gossip about her and her children."
I wonder why she thinks that.
"[name removed since he doesn't want publicity] ... a professor of communications ... thinks Palin is positioning herself for a political future and attacking the media as a way to generate support."
Really? In what alternate universe does the guy live? Sarah Palin has been the target of ongoing political attacks, lies, mean-spirited jokes, and rumors of scandals since being introduced to the Lower 48 by John McCain. Generate support? For cryin' out loud - they haven't left her alone for three seconds since last August. She doesn't need additional publicity.
On the other hand, have you ever heard of [name removed since he doesn't want publicity]? If anyone needs publicity, perhaps it's a previously-unknown professor who was asked to participate in another hatchet job by the press.
John 12:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."
4 comments:
You make it seem as if Sarah Palin were the first political candidate who faced scrutiny by the press. The treatment she received was no tougher or easier than what other candidates have gotten. In fact, one could argue that she was treated with kid gloves after claiming credit for killing the Bridge to Nowhere, which was a patently false claim. If anything, her inability to answer easy, softball questions (such as what do you read to keep informed?) was her undoing. In any case, we should be thankful for press scrutiny because she was vying to be a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States.
And by the way, that professor you mention seeks no publicity and doesn't really care what people say about him. He's just calling it as he sees it, doing his job. And if that means hate mail and misguided comments about him, so be it. I should know. I'm Leonard Steinhorn.
I don't like to talk politics because things can get heated quickly. But, are you kidding me Leonard Steinhorn?!? Sarah Palin was dissed by the media for the stupidest things.. her clothes, her baby, her husband. While Katie Couric grilled her on what newspapers she read (Seriously.. that question made my blood boil), Katie acted like she was on a first date during her interview with Obama. Their was a definite media bias between the two campaigns. Steinhorn IS calling it as he sees it, from a subjective liberal viewpoint.
Bias is in the eye of the beholder. Many liberals thought the press was dredging up a false issue when it looked at Obama's "association" with William Ayers. Personally, I favor full scrutiny of those who seek our highest office. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," Justice Brandeis said.
As for trouble with Couric's question, it wouldn't have been an issue had Governor Palin been able to answer it. My students could have given a fuller answer. But it wasn't just Couric's question. What about Governor Palin's answer to Charles Gibson in which she didn't seem to know about how Social Security fits into our government structure? Or when she seemed lacking in knowledge about how we keep an "eye" on Russia? These are all cumulative, and they suggest that either Governor Palin knows the answers but was unable to communicate them, or that she doesn't know the answers. Regardless, it should give anyone pause -- Democrat or Republican -- about her qualifications to run the most complex and important government in human history.
As for the questions she was asked on her family, I would prefer that all family matters be off limits. But that also means politicians ought not use their family as PR props. Politicians can't have it both ways. And on the clothes, that was a legitimate matter of how campaign money was spent, no different from the way Al Gore was grilled in 2000 when he sought counsel on the types of clothes he should wear.
The point is this: it's our responsibility as citizens to step back from our partisan perspectives and think critically about those who wish to lead us, spend our tax dollars, and potentially send our young people off to war. I fear for an America in which people only see things through their partisan lenses. We should apply the same yardstick to all candidates and all parties, and let the chips fall where they may.
Contributed by Leonard Steinhorn
I had to stop reading Leonard Steinhorn comment half way through it. His bias is still showing!
Post a Comment