“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine providence. It is a trial which the whole Church… must take up.” Karol Cardinal Wotyla (Sept. 1976)

Monday, September 1, 2008

Sarah Palin: The Mudslinging Begins!

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.


Anonymous said...

She supported Steve Forbes, not Pat Buchanan.


Alycin said...

The media, like any other company that sells something, gives people what they want. Scandal. Problems. Shady pasts. Many people are more liberal than conservative Catholics. I am willing to bet that at least some sources that I hear Catholics site as "liberal" would be more accurately described as "moderate". I have been called a liberal more times that I can tell you (in an insulting, derogatory manner) on a certain Catholic message board. Just yesterday, my friend mentioned that Palin didn't have as much experience as he would prefer, but that he was happy about her absolutely pro-life stance. Someone else on this message board told him he was an "Obamatron" and said something like "I thought you said you were Catholic." Oftentimes, people like me (and my friend, and I'm sure anyone else who has a more balanced approach to politics) get a disproportionately large amount of crap thrown at us. My liberal friends give me crap for being pro-life. My conservative friends give me crap for calling them out when they are repeating misinformation about Obama or whoever. Ultraconservatives look at me with utter disdain for trying to see "the other side's" point of view and trying to understand their viewpoints and find middle ground. I don't get that as much with liberals unless they are of the extremely-pro-choice variety... but anyway, I went off on a rabbit trail there.

MSNBC, a source which I think leans to the left but is certainly not the worst culprit, wrote an article on Palin that I enjoyed. It listed all the good qualities first, and then mentioned some of the "problems" or accusations that have been made about her. Reporters would not be doing their jobs if they knew about these things and did not report them. People get paid for digging up the dirt.

You say that not a single major news source has mentioned Obama's "terrorist" friend. Why hasn't FOX covered this? If they did, the other news agencies would almost be obligated to mention it--even if it was only to refute it. The fact that FOX hasn't done anything on it makes me think that they know it can be refuted. Then again, maybe they have done a piece and it just wasn't mentioned in your article.

I have to admit, for someone with a complaint about extreme bias in reporting, your article was quite biased itself. You paint a picture of Obama's friendship with William Ayers as if Obama is in cahoots with a major terrorist and we should all be running scared. Maybe this is due to the recent television ad that is being run by exactly one man. I'm not sure. But either way, Ayers turned himself in over 20 years ago. But you make it seem like this is an ongoing thing. Yet when people point out Palin's past and some mistakes she made (minor ones, that pale in comparison, IMO) you brush it off as being "in the past."

William Ayers and Obama's friendship as it's plastered on conservative blogs all over the internet is nothing more than speculation and even fabrication that other conservative bloggers keep C/P'ing on their own blogs, as if it becomes true if it's posted enough times. This just isn't the case.

An article on this situation is here: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/27300424.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvDE7aL_V_BD77:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

I dunno if that's one of those oh-so-shady liberal news sources you despise or not, but it's worth noting that someone KNOWN for smears doesn't even associate himself with this particular smear.

On another note... I did a lot of things in my past I am by no means proud of. I hope people wouldn't refuse to work with me (Obama/Ayers relationship was mostly due to work, they aren't that close) or be my friend because of my past.

A Voice in the Crowd said...


Fox News did cover the Ayers story:

My point is the liberal media were like jackals on a antelope all over Palin from the first second. They do not apply the same enthusiasm when researching Democratic candidates.

I think you comment on my bias is a little unfair. This is a personal blog where I state my view point at the very top of the page. "Devout Catholic, Social Conservative..."

You can not compare this to the mainstream media who for the most part is incredible bias with their liberal reporting and play it off as news reporting the facts.

Bill O'Reilly the other night pointed out that during the McCain/Palin rally, MSNBS flashed a caption asking how many house Palin owned. Would you call this unbiased?

Chris Mathews asked the crowds at the Democratic Convention who they were voting for. After 15 "Obama" answers, he found one "McCain".
Matthews then asked the person, "Do you think the country is better off than it was 8 years ago?" He equated McCain with the Bush administration. He didn't challenge any Obama answers. Was this not extremely bias?

I have said a few times on my blog Howard Fineman is the best reported out there.

That being said, I do think that MSNBC is the worst culprit out there, followed closely by CNN.

Here is a good web site that will help you understand and give you ammo with your friends. It talks about the media elite. Reporters from big news organizations.

It states:

"89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992."

They also said they voted for John Kerry 12 to 1.

As you know the voting population of this county is not reflective of these numbers.

Alycin said...


MSNBC covered the story.