Showing posts with label Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palin. Show all posts

Sunday, October 05, 2008

Fluffy Bunny with Teeth

Talk about ugly. Talk about desparate.

The AP has clearly shown its bias. Take a look at this story.

And this story.

Let's break it down. Palin finally 'goes public' with Obama's connection to Bill Ayers, an issue which has only been explored by Fox and conservative talk hosts, except when briefly mentioned with scoffing dismissal by the Main Stream Media. Because Palin, the Veep candidate, actually said it, three times, in fact, the AP has no choice but to report it. So, it reports it. Here's how:

During her stop in California, Palin was asked about an Associated Press analysis that said her charge about Ayers was unsubstantiated, a point made by other news organizations, and the criticism carried a "racially tinged subtext that McCain may come to regret."

"The Associated Press is wrong," Palin said, before arguing that the issue had not been adequately discussed.

In fact, Obama was questioned about Ayers during a prime-time Democratic debate against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton prior to April's Pennsylvania primary.

Oh, it was adequately discussed? Because it came out as a question in a primary debate? How come I don't recall seeing any mention of that in the media at that time?

Unsubstantiated? The AP seems a little contradictory here...

Her reference was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.

Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has denounced Ayers' radical views and actions.

Just like he denounced that preacher dude?

And what was this "racially tinged" stuff?

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

Republicans, when will you learn? You have got to avoid using the following racially charged words:

1. we

2. us

3. they

4. them

5. our

6. their

7. Constitution

8. God

9. bless

10. America

The AP, in the spirit of bipartisanship, did at least acknowledge that:

Obama isn't above attacking McCain's character with loaded words, releasing an ad on Sunday that calls the Arizona Republican "erratic" — a hard-to miss suggestion that McCain's age, 72, might be an issue.

"Our financial system in turmoil," an announcer says in Obama's new ad. "And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy."

Only to point out that:

A harsh and plainly partisan judgment, certainly, but not on the level of suggesting that a fellow senator is un-American and even a friend of terrorists.

The AP then just went on to point out how wrong this 'unsubstantiated' 'Swift-boat' 'character' attack is.

Yes, this is actually being considered a 'character attack', rather than an attack on the man's political viewpoints. A character attack is generally dismissed by the public. Political viewpoints, however, really ought to be aired in the public laundromat.

Quote of the day:

"It's a giant changing of the subject," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. "The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don't send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don't take Sarah Palin seriously."

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Barak, the Sure Bet

Palin has arguably little real foreign experience, other than being the governor of a state that borders Russia and Canada. She has a reasonable explanation for why she never got a passport until a few years ago. Maybe she just really liked Alaska. I mean, how could you not? Maybe there is something to the concern that someone with limited foreign experience could inherit the white house. (Although, really, is it so important that one leave the U.S. in order to have a clue as to how the world works? I wonder how many U.S. senators actually visited with foreign leaders before running for the senate? Is it not just as important for them, who have such influence in everything from who to ally with to whether to sign a treaty concerning the protection of migrating birds?)

But, see, Palin is not running for president. Nope, folks, she is seeking to be vice president. This means that, should her ticket win, a U.S. senator with a vast number of years of foreign experience, military training, and dedication to the best interests of his country will be the president.

It is conceivable that one day he will die. Perhaps that day will occur during his term as president. And it is, therefore, conceivable that Gov. Sarah will become our next president.

That makes some people feel a little uneasy. Understandably so. The concern is that we might have a president with only, by that time, a few years of foreign policy experience. What is not so understandable, however, is, if this is a concern of yours, why you would vote to guarantee that the next president will have very limited foreign experience. After all, how much possible foreign policy experience can a man get organizing a Chicago community?

I guess people just really don't like uncertainty.

The Numbers Are In