I came across this piece in The Washington Post by Dan Balz contrasting the remarks made yesterday by President Obama and Sarah Palin with respect to the shootings in Tucson.
The article could be summed up in six words: President Obama good, Sarah Palin bad.
But there’s one passage from Balz’s article which demands commentary:
Perhaps by an accident of timing, Palin put herself into the same news cycle as the president. After several days of silence, she offered her first extended commentary on the shootings.
On what planet does Balz reside?
Sarah Palin didn’t put herself into the news cycle. She was thrust into it by Paul Krugman and stood accused of being complicit in mass murder. Those leveling these accusations assured Palin remained in the news cycle by demanding she break her silence. If Palin hadn’t spoken yesterday, liberal pundits would have contrasted Palin’s reticence with Obama’s eloquence.
But alas Palin did speak yesterday and apparently committed an impropriety by having the temerity to speak on the day as President Obama. I didn’t realize Palin was required to seek permission from the liberal media to speak if President Obama plans to speak on the same day.
The bottom line is that Palin is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.
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?