Bring It On!

Palin Targeted by Bloggers and the Media

September 3rd, 2008 | by Papamoka |

Even John McCain is crying that the press and those of us in the bloggosphere are not being fair to Governor Sarah Palin. He is absolutely right! If he had picked someone with some real life experience in government other than twenty plus months as a Governor then we just might have “vetted” her less. No, John McCain picked an unknown Governor from Alaska that the MSM and left and right wing bloggers know nothing about. I for one think that it is pretty important to know who is only a heartbeat away from the most powerful political office in the world!

This nation is fighting a war on two fronts and John McCain has a problem with people asking questions about someone he wants as his immediate replacement if God chooses that he has to come home? Well the main stream media is going to pound his pick for Vice President into the ground till they know who the hell she is and where she stands on all of the issues and this is supposed to be a race for President based on issues. Politics at this level is not a gentleman’s game, not by far, this is where you better be able to step up fast and fight back fast. There is no topic off the table regardless of kind requests to do so by your political opponent.

There is only one person to blame for the rash of harsh reality based reporting of facts that comes with a presidential race when you pick an unknown person. That would lay fully on the shoulders of John McCain. The press and bloggers are not to blame for the million and one questions that needed to be answered on Sarah Palin. John McCain’s life is an open book, hell, he even has a couple of books you can buy to find out more about him. John McCain is the known person in this discussion and this election, Sarah Palin is not!

The treatment of Sarah Palin would be the same for any Obama candidate for Vice President but Barack Obama was wise and chose a well known and experienced person in the U.S. Senate as his Vice President. Someone with thirty five years worth of public experience that is all well known in the press. Someone like Joe Biden that actually knows how to move change through the congress and get the job done. That is what a Vice President is supposed to do if you were wondering. The Vice President takes the President’s legislation and lobbies it through the Senate and the House. Al Gore did it, George H. W. Bush did it, and so did Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman. I gave those for former Vice President’s as a reference because in each White House they served under our nation came through great crisis and landed on our feet.

So when people tell you (John McCain) that the job of the Vice President is to inquire to the health of the President each day, it is a gross negligence of thought on how the office of Vice President actually is supposed to work. Furthermore, if that is how he thinks, then Governor Palin is just a pin up girl that looks great on television and not worth her salt at all. His definition of Vice President, not mine.

While John McCain is dead set on the Vice President office being a heart monitor to the President, the current office holder has chosen to use the Vice President’s office as a bully pulpit where not only is the Congress not seeing his service to America but his delegation to others outside of government is extremely evident. Black Water, Haliburton, and skirting the blame for outing of a CIA agent to his staff.

As for Senator McCain claiming that the press is unfair to Governor Palin, did he not read any of the press or blogs while Hillary Clinton was running for President? Hillary was torn apart on each of her positions and she stuck to her guns and her gut feeling on what was best for America. I’m proud to say that Hillary Clinton made it possible for John McCain to pick a woman as Vice President but the same questions given to Hillary Clinton are fair game for Governor Sarah Palin. Hillary Clinton won 18 million votes as a tough candidate that could handle the heat and answer the questions put to her in one of the toughest primary campaigns in history. Something that is expected when you are going to be responsible for almost 400 million American’s future.

Nobody gets a pass when the people want to know who the hell is Sarah Palin and why did John McCain pick her as his Vice President candidate? This isn’t just politics for bloggers. It’s about our wondering who the hell Sarah Palin is! Behind every blog is somebody with a vote. Some of us just happen to have a louder voice than others.

Papamoka

Related Posts…
Sarah Palin & the 80%
Palin Inexperience Called on by Conservatives
Bridge to Nowhere for Governor Palin

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 10 Responses to “Palin Targeted by Bloggers and the Media”

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 3, 2008 | Reply

    Well, to be fair, so far both members of the media and bloggers have suggested that Palin covered up her daughter’s pregnancy (which mere arithmetic based upon said daughter’s current pregnancy could have shown could not have been true); that Palin had been a member of a fringe group (which a check of voter registration forms would have shown was not true) that, at least in Alaska, is not all that fringe; lefties who consistently say that a women’s place is in the highest offices in the land, both public and private, have been positively fretting wondering how a woman with five children, one a baby with a disability, can possibly even think of taking on the vice-presidential place on a ticket. This is the dreck that is being passed off as doing the job as vetting that McCain should have done!

    It’s all been positively farcical to watch.

    Meanwhile, almost no one is talking about the one true issue that could and should sink both Palin and McCain if true: Sarah Palin is under investigation in her state for improper use of office in firing a political appointee allegedly in a personal vendetta against her sister’s abusive husband who is a state trooper in Alaska.

    I frankly fail to see how whether the latest Palin child is Sarah’s or her daughters or whether she joined or merely courted the support of the third largest political party in Alaska, and the fourth largest political party in the United States (at least according to AIP) over 12 years ago passes for anybody’s fucking business (that last since at least the end of the McCarthy era). The press and the bloggers have been straining out gnats while virtually ignoring the one actual make-or-break issue in Palin’s background.

    Honestly, watching liberals chide Palin because her yet-unmarried daughter is pregnant and worrying over how Palin can even think about taking on the position of vice president has been hysterical for this observer to observe. Liberals having fits about pregnant unwed mothers…who’d've ever thought!

    And please don’t get all huffy saying that you’ve not said these things about Palin. I’m not accusing you; I’m accusing countless others. I just happen to be doing it in the comment section of your post.

    And I don’t think Hillary Clinton had anything to do with making it possible for McCain to pick a woman for v-p. That was done by Geraldine Ferraro and Walter Mondale some 24 years ago, long before anyone had heard of Hillary Clinton.

  3. By windspike on Sep 4, 2008 | Reply

    Craig has a point:

    Meanwhile, almost no one is talking about the one true issue that could and should sink both Palin and McCain if true: Sarah Palin is under investigation in her state for improper use of office in firing a political appointee allegedly in a personal vendetta against her sister’s abusive husband who is a state trooper in Alaska.

    What happened to the integrity of the GOP? There aught to be a splinter group forming of GOP types trying to reclaim their party as it has been hijacked.

  4. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 4, 2008 | Reply

    Well, hopefully I had more than just ONE point worth noticing but thanks for noticing that one, Windspike!

    Remember, it wasn’t all that long ago that it was Republicans taking over the majorities from a long run of Democratic control of Congress. The reason? Lot’s I suppose but corruption was a big one. It simply does no good to say the GOP has no integrity since the Democrats have none either.

    Nor does it do to call for break-off groups. They get categorized as “fringe groups” by media pundits and bloggers alike. They wind up like the Green Party, the Libertarian Party and any of the other “Change the Face of American Politics” parties and run people like Ralph “Unsafe at Any Speed” Nader. They go nowhere and do nothing because they have no chance at power and you have to actually get power to do anything at all. At best, they’re useless. At worst, they split tickets and play havoc with they those who are genuine contenders (i. e., those who actually have a chance at power).

    No thanks.

    Political parties are fragile coalitions of people that, in some ways, cannot stand one another but work together because they share a common enemy: those in the other party. Split one party up and all you wind up with is the other Party having uncontested victories.

    It is my opinion that there will never be an electable third party in this country.

    But even if we did and the Republican Party collapsed under the weight of its corruption and the new party became a viable force in American politics (it has happened before), you assume that the new, splinter party would not just wind up in the same place as the party they splintered off from. Not unless that party is populated by beings of a species other than human. Human beings, given power, become corrupted. Invariably. Power attracts the power hungry and, generally, the ones who know how to get it are not the ones to be trusted once they’ve got it. It’s why we have elections in this country every two years.

    Human beings are not to be trusted with power, not for long.

    The solution is to change those in power more often. Redistricting makes that tough. Probably the best solution is to institute term limits, as was done with the presidency but, alas, I fear that that’s a pipe-dream that will never come to be.

    Of course, I’m a conservative and pessimistic by nature…but history backs me up on this, I believe.

  5. By Paul Watson on Sep 4, 2008 | Reply

    Craig,
    The reason liberals are talking about her daughter having sex outside wedlock is that, well, the Republican party who is clutching Palin close to its collective bosom is usually very quick to condemn single mothers, teenagers who have sex outside of wedlock and to blame poor parenting for causing it. Why is that not true of Sarah Palin? If Republicans didn’t make this an issue for ewveryone else, I know I personally wouldn’t know or care. It’s the GOP’s rampant unawareness of how quickly they turn on a dime on “principled moral stands” that gets me.

    I mean, if she can’t even convince her own family to do what she knows is right, how’s she going to convince Congress (although to be fair, a teenager and opposition Congress probably aren’t much difference in obstinate stropery)?

  6. By Lisa on Sep 4, 2008 | Reply

    Paul Palin increased funding for sinlge mothers in her state almost triple. Hard to fathom a republican with compaasion.
    Her daughter got pregnant,isn’t that her “choice” to keep it or not. Palin is allowed to not believe in abortion if she “chooses”.
    So in order for her to appeal to you she has to believe in abortion? Maybe you would like her more if her husband were a pedophile.

  7. By Paul Watson on Sep 4, 2008 | Reply

    Lisa,
    I didn’t mention abortion once. For good reason, it’s not relevant. I don’t care if Bristol Palin has an abortion or not. I don’t care she’s pregnant, either, except that the Republican party has demonised single mothers claiming these girls weren’t brought up properly. Well, guess what: That applies to the Palin’s too. So either it’s just an everyday thing and there’s nothing that wrong with it except stupidity (which I agree with) and the Republicans were wrong to demonise it, or Palin is an unfit mother and therefore an unfit VP. I don’t mind which position the party takes, but I’d like it to take one of them as they’re mutually exclusive.

    Also note, this the Republican party, not Republicans as a whole. To my recollection, none of the Republicans who post regularly on this site have spewed the kind of stuff I’m talking about.

  8. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 4, 2008 | Reply

    Paul W.,

    I see. And what was the last politician that you liked, that you thought, for the most part, had policies of which you approved and thought would be an asset in office for various political reasons but just, well, gosh darn it, their teen-aged daughter got pregnant out of wedlock and so you just couldn’t bring yourself to support that candidate for public office. Has this ever happened?

    So then, why would you think that Republicans, whether religious or not (and we’re not all evangelical Christians, you know), would reject a woman for public office based upon the fact that her teen aged daughter got pregnant out of wedlock?

    It’s one thing to think that out of wedlock sex is sin because the Bible says it is and therefore that people should be discouraged from having out of wedlock sex and that those who have out of wedlock sex should be told that God disapproves of that sort of thing and that unrepentently continuing in behaviors of which God disapproves might interfere with one’s relationship with God but having a daughter who has had sex out of wedlock does not, by the mere fact of having occurred, condemn the parent as either an abusive or neglectful parent or unfit for office.

    I think that most people in this day and age have had a child who have been sexual outside of marriage, evangelical Christians included. Most have not banished their children but have loved and supported them however much they might have disapproved of their children’s behavior. Most, certainly, do not banish the parents of children who have had out of wedlock sex as being, eo ipso, either bad or negligent parents.

    Most, indeed any who are parents, know that getting children to do the right thing is nowhere near as simple as convincing them to live up to their ideals. No one who’s been a parent could reasonably find a parent unfit for public office because that parent failed to get their children to act according to their principles with 100% success.

    So I think that going on about the fact that Palin’s daughter is pregnant out of wedlock (but who is engaged to the babies father) and using this as evidence that Palin herself is not fit for holding office is counterproductive for several reasons:

    1) It seems to us both unseemly and, indeed, hypocritical done by liberals who, themselves, (a) professedly have nothing but compassion and support for unwed mothers (or at least they profess such when the mother isn’t a conservative politician who seems to be firing up the Republican base) and who, (b) unless there is clear evidence of parental abuse or neglect, are not much given to accusing parents of abuse or neglect solely on the evidence that their teen aged daughter got pregnant out of wedlock (well, unless of course, she’s a conservative politician who is firing up the Republican base) and (c) think that there should be no bars to women holding public offices right up to the top (well, again, unless the woman is a conservative politician who is firing up the Republican base).

    Then again, 2) I find such criticism unlikely to actually convince those that seem to be the focus of the criticism, the Republican base, that Palin is an unfit vice president. If anyone really thinks that continued criticism of Palin by liberals is going to result in a lessening of support for Palin, is going to dampen enthusiasm by Republicans for Palin, I think they overestimate the persuasiveness of liberals’ arguments among Republicans, particularly arguments that appear to us both unseemly and hypocritical when advanced by liberals (for which, see point 1 above). Every such criticism by a liberal is only likely to further endear Palin to them.

    So then, as a purely practical matter, why continue. Okay. We all get it. She’s 17. She’s not married. She’s pregnant. Duly noted. Move on because the more you go on about it the more we like her.

    These are not, you see, reasons why she should not be trusted in office. If you’ve got actual substantive reasons why she should not be entrusted with public office that even we Republicans can find both seemly and convincing, like that she’s under investigation for misuse of public power for personal reasons, please by all means, advance them. Honestly, why liberals are wasting their time with this piddly shit is beyond me. There are good, solid reasons for mistrusting Palin. That her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock ain’t one of them.

  9. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 4, 2008 | Reply

    Of course, it does mean that there’s some political hypocrisy that you’ve detected on the part of Republicans to the extent that they have used such arguments to mean that politicians of the other persuasion are, by that reason, unfit for office. To that extent, I agree with you. My argument is not that Republicans have been wholly consistent in the application of their principles or arguments but then again, if you’re looking for consistency of application of principles, you’re looking to the wrong species. And I don’t mean the Republican species, I mean the human species. After all, in 1984, when Walter Mondale was thinking of picking a woman who was not particularly well known, had few qualifications other than that she would be the first woman chosen to run for Vice President in the United States, the New York Times ran an editorial that basically said, (and I’m paraphrasing rather than quoting at this point since I don’t have the editorial before me) “Who says a v-p candidate has to be a Senator? Why not a Governor or Mayor? In the past, Vice Presidents have been picked for all kinds of reasons and so why shouldn’t a relatively inexperienced woman be allowed to grow into the office?”

    On the consistency of application of principle front, I eagerly await a similar New York Times editorial applying the same principled argument to Sarah Palin.

    I won’t hold my breath, though. Somehow, I don’t think the principled argument will be consistently applied in this case. Not because the New York Times editors are liberals and will be voting for Obama this November, although I can just about guarantee you that they are and will, but because they are human beings and when ideology and politics get mixed up together, human beings are incapable of perfect consistency of application of principles.

  10. By Paul Watson on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply

    Craig,
    Obviously something is getting lost in translation between American and English and vice versa.

    Bristol Palin is pregnant out of wedlock. This is none of my business. I don’t care and hope she, her future husband and the baby have a long and happy marriage, but I have rather strong doubts (which are themselves irrelevant as I’m not involved).

    The Republican party (again, not all Republicans, but the party itself) has said that teenagers who have sex out of wedlock show that the parents themselves are not moral and not bringing their children up correctly.

    The Republican Party (again, not all Republicans) makes a great show of how important it’s moral principles are and how they should be applied to everyone else or else America is doomed.

    These three positions cannot be reconciled. Either the principles are important to the party, in which case, in its own terms, Sara Palin is unfit to be VP, or the party has been wrong in what it says. Again, I don’t care which it chooses, but choose.

    You’re free to bring up the thousands of examples of liberal hypocrisy or even general human hypocrisy. It should keep you busy for a couple of lifetimes to make a decent start.

  11. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 9, 2008 | Reply

    For the record, I don’t think that Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment made Palin out to be the pig. I think Palin was the lipstick and the pig was the same policies that we’ve had under Bush. Although, I must say, it was an incredibly stupid comment from someone losing women voters to McCain-Palin like water through a sieve because the most obvious (and I think wrong) interpretation here is that (lipstick-wearing) Palin is the Pig. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    Note to Obama: you need to be sucking up to women, not being perceived as insulting one.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel