Here we have the quite lovely but obviously just as biased Nora O'Donnell, whom Chris Matthews refers to as a "hard news" reporter, telling us that the crowd "has a connection" to Sarah Palin, "and I think it's an emotional one." Sounds like opinion to me, however much truth there may be to it. Of course, what you're supposed to take away from it is that there's no basis for that emotional connection other than the fact that she's white and Christian ... keep watching.
Another interesting thing is that as an example of how clueless these Palin supporters were, she said they liked her because she was against "the" bailout (there were multiple bailouts, but let's assume she means TARP) when "in fact" Palin "supported" it. From which Salon editor in chief Joan Walsh jumps straight to "whopping lie".
Allahpundit over at Hot Air came up with a letter Palin wrote to the Alaska state legislature in January that evidenced her acceptance of the funds, but also, in the closing paragraph, clearly expressed her concerns about this kind of federal bailout and where they lead.
Although it is beyond my purview as Governor, I also urge you to consider how the economic stimulus package will affect the national debt and the future economic health of the country. The need for economic stimulus should not become an excuse for the continuation of the unsound policies of the past. The nation’s economy will never achieve long-term stability if we continue borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign countries, all the while Simultaneously sending huge amounts of money overseas to OPEC countries for oil that could be produced domestically. In this regard, I am astounded by amounts of a trillion dollars and more that are currently being discussed in some quarters.
I believe our nation is truly at an economic crossroads. Properly constructed, the economic stimulus package will greatly assist in sending our country down the right road. Without question, you will be called upon to make very difficult decisions on behalf of Alaska and the nation, and I want to assure you of the cooperation of my administration in achieving the best possible result.In other words, I don't like this, but since it's happening, I'm willing to try to make the best of it. Sounds like the Palin I know. And I think what it exposes (for the eleventy jillionth time) is the echo chamber of the liberal press. Someone interpreted her acceptance as support, and said "you lie! Palin supported it!"... and it's become so accepted as fact that reporters don't feel the need to look into the veracity, dare I say, even nuances, of her position and just come out and boldly call her a whopping "liar". They like that word, "lie", I've noticed.
Matthews and the rest point out that the crowd is "white", "monocrhomatic" ... and say a few times not that there's anything wrong with that ... but they continue to repeatedly point it out as if there were.
- This is a largely white, almost no minorities in this crowd. almost, eh? - ed
- Well they look like a white crowd to me, not that there's anything wrong
- but it is pretty, uh, monochromatic
- No surprise in terms of the ethnic nature of the people showing up, nothing wrong with that
- but it is a fact
- I think there's a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs other people
Cut to Palin saying it was a mistake to avoid "profiling" a Muslim soldier in our army who had on multiple occasions expressed sympathy toward the enemy's cause and terrorist tactics ... and then from Matthews
- everybody knows what proviling means: it's driving while black
- if you come from a middle-eastern country, keep your eye on this guy
Again, I've been to Tea Parties. Nobody was there making sure you were white before they'd let you participate. And I've seen footage of Tea Parties and there have been blacks there right along with whites, in solidarity because what mattered was the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
The "nastiness". The attacks on the "little people" ... Steve Schmitt, Nocole Wallace. Yeah, little people. You know, you have lots of people who are prominent operatives at the highest level of a presidential campaign. They're your friends, your neighbors, your co-workers. "And at the same time [she says] she's looking out for little people."
Now Joan is not a hard news reporter, although she probably considers herself that -- goes down her talking points list, and you can actually hear her set them up, and then repeat them just in case we missed what she was saying. "She [Palin] is a very divisive, mean-spirited person".
Really?
She's fighting down (sic) with her 19 year old ex-future-son-in-law, who should really be ignored.I'm sure she'd love to. Can we? Would the media stop covering that self-centered idiot and stop asking her questions about what he's saying to keep "Ricky Hollywood" in the spotlight? Is that a promise from Salon never to mention him again? I sure hope so.
When her supporters say they believe that she'll "defend the constitution", they're "babbling". For good measure, she adds "as if Obama won't." (Clearly, from what Obama has said on more than one occasion suggests that he considers the Constitution merely a "remarkable" historical document that "paved the way" to where we are today ... but -- the guy says he wants to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America. Since the Constitution defines The United States of America, it's not a huge leap to figure he's ready to depart from that definition significantly.)
Here's what you're supposed to come away with from this piece. Palin's fans are ignorant, white, Bible-thumping racists, and Palin is a "nasty", immature, mean-spirited, divisive liar who really isn't for the "little people" who the "general public" doesn't trust and sees this kind of "mean girl" persona that she's "never grown out of" which is why "she'll never be President." Be afraid. Those are the talking points.
That just doesn't jive with what I see.
No comments:
Post a Comment