Relentless liberal attacks fueling Palin partisans’ passion
September 13th, 2008 at 01:49am Chuck Sweeny
Bring ‘em on. That’s what Republicans are hoping for as the Hollywood idiotocracy spews insult after insult, often vulgar, at Sarah Palin. Conservative talk radio hosts are having a field day replaying these sound bytes endlessly on their shows.
While there is plenty to criticize McCain-Palin about, including numerous inconsistencies and key philosophical disagreements between the two GOP’ers, the media frenzy to destroy Palin — Charles Gibson is exhibit A — is nothing short of amazing. Sure, it’s legit to go after her on lots of issues about where Mayor Sarah and Governor Sarah are at odds with Vice Presidential nominee Sarah. Or where Senator McCain is the opposite of Presidential nominee McCain.
But what bothers me is, why wasn’t Obama wasn’t vetted as severely by the media? The Hillary campaign was exasperated that Barry O’ was given the kid-glove treatment by the Mainstream Media. His past activities on Chicago’s South side, his relationship with unrepentant 60s radical William Ayers, why he stayed at Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years and what exactly he accomplished as a community organizer, state senator and U.S. senator. Also, he’s running on “change,” and there’s no evidence he did anything in Chicago to reform that corrupt system.In fact, he played by its rules.
That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be a good president, but it’s information we ought to know.
The vetting job about all of that was never done thoroughly, heck, it wasn’t done at all.. But the introduction by McCain of Palin sent hundreds, probably thousands of media and Obama operatives to the 49th state, scouring for dirt on Sarah.
As I said, I don’t mind them doing that, but why’d Barry-O get a pass?
This kind of stuff just lends credibility to the widespread belief among millions that the media are in the tank for O. Which I’m sure is not true at all, and that my colleagues in the media outlets of the East Coast are Just …. Doing … Their … Jobs.
And did I tell you about that bridge in Brooklyn? It’s gone up on e-Bay.
Entry Filed under: Vetting Miss Sarah
14 Comments Add your own
1. Tom Ferrell | September 13th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Apparently you have not been paying much attention over the last eighteen months. Obama has been grilled repeatedly on the items you mention and has conducted himself quite well.
We, the American people, need to wake up from silly season and get back to issues. There are two clear choices in this campaign. A continuation of bull in a china shop foreign policy, a you’re on your own economic policy, and an extreme far right social conservatism OR a measured, diplomatic-centric approach to the rest of the world, an economic policy that focuses on helping the middle class, and a much more balanced approach to social issues that favor indivudal choice.
This election matters A LOT and we cannot afford to be making choices based on race, gender, single-issue litmus test issues. We need the whole package and on balance, the Obama Biden ticket is the better choice. I hope you will join with me in helping take back the White House for the people.
2. Art | September 13th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Obama-Biden ticket is only a choice if you want the US to become a 3rd world country with bombed out cities and civl unrest. At least the 2nd amendment has assured that I will be able to keep my family safe!
3. coldhotel | September 13th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Charles Gibson is part of a media frenzy to destroy Sarah Palin? Are you kidding? Please describe what Gibson did that you think was inappropriate other than asking not-too-tough questions that would give a viewer an idea on Palin’s grasp on issues or lack thereof.
4. Billybeermonicagar | September 13th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Count me out. Socialism just is not my bag.
5. POLFOE | September 13th, 2008 at 9:38 am
This Ferrell guy has no idea who big O is. Or, he’s a member of ACORN.
6. Chuck Sweeny | September 13th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Not really. Only the right wing talkers pursued these issues until the MSM were forced to cover it, but not thorougly.
7. Chuck Sweeny | September 13th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
My comment was directed at Ferrell’s post. As for Gibson, he was an annoying prig whose disdain for Palin was was obvious. And as Charles Krauthammer has pointed out in the Washington Post, it was Krauthammer who coined the term Bush Doctrine, of which there are several, evolving definitions. Gibson got it wrong when he tried for a gotcha question. by contrast, the Stephanopoulis interview with Obama was a love fest
All I’m looking for is even-handed treatment — I really dont’ know who’s going to get my vote. I’m making up my mind and would like some down the-middle coverage from the MSM.
.
8. Wester Wuori | September 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Let me understand something: Barack Obama has been vetted for months by the MSM, bloggers, right wing nuts and everyone and his brother. There’s very little about him we don’t know, both good and bad. And, that’s how it should be; he’s running for the most powerful position in the world.
However, on the other hand, Sarah Palin was plucked from obscurity three weeks ago to be one heart attack away from the Presidency and we don’t get the chance to ask her tough questions? She was in a media-free bubble for two weeks before she sat down with Charlie Gibson and it’s offensive because he asked her a few tough questions?
Gibson went easy on her, quite frankly. I wonder how long she’d have lasted with Tim Russert, may he rest in peace. So, her supporters are offended because the media are looking into her background? They’re mad because we want to know her stance on issues?The American people deserve to know where she stands on issues and whether she has the intellectual capability to be Vice President, or President, and it’s the media’s job to ask those questions.
It doesnt’ matter what side of the aisle you are on; you should encourage the media to continue to press ALL the candidates for their views on issues and their ideas on where they want to take our country. That’s part of the process and we should not take it for granted.
9. Chuck Sweeny | September 14th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
No, Wester, he has NOT been vetted. There never has been an in depth story of Wright’s church and Obama’s longtime membership in it; no vetting of his work as a community organizer on the South Side. Did it accmoplish anything? Was he a member of ACORN? I would like to know that. What was his relationship with William Ayers? Why all the “present” votes in the Legislature?
I resent having to learn about these things from the likes of Sean Hannity, the rightwing blowhard.
10. hokumboy | September 15th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Chuck,
You live 90 miles from Chicago.
You’re a journalist.
Quit sitting back and festering resentment.
Go out and vet.
11. Wester Wuori | September 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I’m an Obama supporter and I come at this from that perspective. But, are you seriously claiming that Obama has not been vetted?
Hmmm. In about five minutes of online digging, on all of these issues you mention, I was able to find major articles by MSM outlets digging deep into these stories.
On Obama and ACORN, I found pieces in the National Review, Weekly Standard, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, just off the top.
Voting present? Check out the New York Times and NPR They’ve all done stories on Obama and his present votes and how and why that’s done in the Illinois General Assembly.
Jeremiah Wright? New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Rolling Stone, Fox News, ABC News, to name a few, have dug into that part of Obama’s past.
Role as a community organizer? Been covered by The Nation, LA Times, Chicago Tribune and U.S. News & World Report, and in a 14,000 word piece in the New Yorker that was extremely well done.
Again, this was found in some very quick searching and looking at just a few of these stories under each topic. In my view, these stories have been covered, and quite well I think, by your brethren in the mainstream media, both on the right and left, for crying out loud. Yes, it takes work for a person to go out and do the digging and reading but that should be part of our efforts as responsible voters. What is it about the coverage that is not satisfying you?
My point in my original response was that now it’s apparently rude to question Palin’s intellect, credentials, background, leadership capabilities and judgment. But, it was OK to dig into every association, friendship, conversation and affiliation that Barack Obama has ever had?
All four candidates for President and VP need to be thoroughly vetted and challenged and it’s our job as voters, citizens and journalists to demand that that happens.
12. Chuck Sweeny | September 15th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Wester, I am not a partisan for either candidate. I think the MSM have treated Barry-O with kid gloves, and yes, I’ve read the same stories you mentioned.
By contrast, the stories on Sarah Palin are much harder edged, reflecting the MSM’s bias in favor of Obama. Heck, Hillary complained about the same thing back in the primaries. SNL spoofed the media swoon for Obama.
All I want is equal treatment for both tickets, and we are not getting it.
13. coldhotel | September 15th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
From what I’ve read here, I seriously doubt your claim to being non-partisan. Are you still saying that Obama has not been vetted, with all the sources Wester cited above, or do you have some expectation that they should dig up an equal amount of dirt about Obama (as they have about Palin)? Why are you so sure that there’s a smoking gun somewhere in Obama’s past? This just sounds like, there’s so much negative stuff coming out about Palin, let’s change the subject.
14. Wez | September 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
So is Obama running againt Palin? That seems to be what the Democrats believe, even the ones on this board. Look at the Veeps who were never electable, there are many. Palin would not even have been an issue if you went with a winner in Hillary, rather than that stupid old fool Biden.
What I have a problem with is this; why do the Dems always get to be portrayed as the golden lit angels, when they attack so viciously with comments about incest, gang rape and being disabled, and hack into people’s email to attempt to destroy them?
Both of your parties are filled to the brim with scum, and this mob rule democracy led my the media was not what the founders had in mind for the government.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed