May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
Forgive my anger which leads me to not follow my own advice from my column today, but the establishment media response to Sarah Palin’s speech makes me want to put media faces on a punching bag and beat it to smithereens. The editor in chief of CBS News takes the cake with a sickening, viciously sneering response to Palin’s video statement on the Tucson tragedy — a statement that was eloquent, thoughtful, and well-delivered (even if I think she should not have used the words “blood libel” although it is certainly within the realm of being justifiable). The column by CBS editor Dan Farber is called “Palin Plays the Victim Card.” Farber wrote that Palin “appears to be tone deaf to Giffords statement that there are consequences to actions. The consequences of Palin’s crosshairs may not be directly related to the shooting rampage in Tucson and assassination attempt, but they are related to the level of divisiveness in the country.” And: “The likely presidential aspirant doesn’t seem to take any responsibility for ratcheting up the political dialog or believe that there is any need to moderate the tone of political discourse in America.”
What a crock. Palin isn’t “playing the victim card” (I await the day when Farber accuses a black liberal or radical like Al Sharpton of “playing the race card,” even though Sharpton does it every day of his life); she actually is a victim. The furious and outrageous verbal assault on her in the wake of the shootings has made her a victim indeed. How would Farber like being treated as an accessory to mass murder?
Tone deaf? Consequences to actions? WHAT actions, Mr. Farber?!? Palin’s crosshairs were perfectly acceptable images. Bob Beckel said he uses stuff like that all the time. The moderate DLC used them. The DNCC used them too. Why is it so bad for Palin to use the same symbols the Democrats use? Why does that make her culpable for lowering the tone of debate? There is NOTHING wrong with the tone of her crosshairs ad. It doesn’t promote violence. It just doesn’t. Or, if it does, then blame the Democrats for using it first. Hell, one of the Demo ads that used ctarget symbols didn’t just use a map, but actuall named, described, and put n pictures of the specific Republicans targeted.
Readers of this site know that I am no big fan of Gov. Palin’s. But I will rally to her defense any time she is vilely attacked. I have NEVER seen or heard her “ratchet up the political dialog” in a way that even comes close to going beyond ordinary bunds of discourse. Never. But I have seen her be victimized by the most sickening smears, again and again and again. Tis’ time it stops.
Check out Drudge, for now, for other outlandish renewed attacks on Palin from ABC and others. These people make me feel vomitous.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online