Well the expected onslaught on Sara Palin has begun. It’s the "Usual Suspects"; the New York Times, the Washington Post, other liberal assassin rags, etc...
In just a few hours after the Sarah Palin announcement, the hostile liberal media advanced their agenda by a litany of mud throwing against her:
1) On Friday night, mere hours after the VP announcement, the Washington Post found and interviewed the State Commissioner who Palin "fired". The article had a title mentioning the term "arm’s length," a term that suggests impropriety, guilty before proven innocent. Interesting to note, it is never mentioned that this employee was offered another job in Palin’s administration, but turned it down, so now he was "fired." It also should be noted that I don’t think Obama’s terrorist friend, William Ayers, has been interviewed yet to date. It is very hard for the liberal media to find him, he teaches at the University of Illinois. For three years it has been known that Obama was running for President. They get to the Palin interview in a few hours, the Obama interview never.
2) The media uncovered a story and blamed her for the hiring and firing of the State Commissioner's replacement when a previous sexual harassment claim was determined unresolved. (The replacement admits he concealed this fact on the interview being on record as saying no one "asked me about the letter on the interview…so I didn’t mention it"). There was bi-partisan support for his removal.
3) They uncovered she is nothing more than a Pat Buchanan extremist by supporting him in his Presidential run many years back. (Note: She wasn’t alone, Buchanan won the Alaskan Republican Primary against Bush Sr. when he ran for President. All the other Alaskans must be extremists as well.)
4) They, the liberal press, found out her mother-in-law is a Democrat and may vote along party lines. (How many families have members that vote different party lines?) In addition, they put a picture of Palin as a twenty year-old college student, taken a quarter of a century ago, wearing a joke T-shirt trying to discredit her.
5) This morning, the New York Times says she was originally in favor of the "Bridge to No Where" by her making a pro-infrastructure statement when she was campaigning, before she killed the project. The statement itself, uses the term "projects"; plural, which makes me think she was talking in generalities. Reuters interviewed politicians from the bridge’s district who lost all that earmark money for the bridge, with obviously no vendetta, saying she misrepresented herself to them. And even if it is true, that she supported the project while running for office, things do change. You have more access to records and budget numbers after you take office. I would ask all the media outlets issuing this story whose signature killed the bridge project? Give her some credit.
Now I do not have a problem with freedom of the press and them finding everything than can on Palin.
What I do have a problem with is their hypocrisy and how they don’t treat liberal candidates that they support the same way. If Obama picked a women as his VP, is there any doubt that she would not be treated this way?
Obama sat in a church with a racist pastor for twenty years. The liberal press never revealed this until after the Iowa Caucus. But they can find all this on Palin within hours of her appointment.
How long did it take to bring to the forefront, and we still have not gotten to the bottom of, Obama’s shady house deal where he saved $300K? (Note: I had to search hard on Google News to find the details of this.)
By the time the press is done with their agenda targeting her, it will make Clarence Thomas’ experience like a cakewalk. We should all realize what is going on here.