The Washington press corps has spent so much time shooting itself in the foot over l’affaire Palin that they appear to need more ammunition. Not a day goes by that Some New Outrage is reported on the front page, only to be quietly deconstructed the next day. Considering that she’s the vice presidential candidate – an important player, to be sure, but nothing like as important as the head to head match-up for the number one spot – the whole thing bears the mark of an unhealthy obsession.
Had they not been in such an unseemly frenzy to slime the Alaska governor in the first days after her nomination was announced, some of this newer matter might actually stick. But anyone paying attention quickly came to the realization that the press and their enablers were acting more out of indignation at being surprised and fear of the new possibilities: The script in hand read that an honorable old war horse would fight the good fight against The New Socialist Man, lose by a respectable margin and yield the field to the forces of a resurgent Camelot. Palin’s selection tore that script up and made for an exciting, unpredictable race whose outcome is very much in doubt.
Inevitability makes for poor copy. You’d think the press would be grateful.
As for the rest of us, the meaning was clear: The press is once again in the tank for the candidate of a certain party. Filters are installed. Foreign media are consulted for an unbiased view.
The irony in all of this is that their early hysteria and blind casting about for a weapon – any weapon at all – with which to rid themselves of this inconvenient women has made their later due diligence seem like more in a effort to create sleazy, baseless innuendos. They’ve practically catapulted her into the kind of “live woman/dead boy” immunity that Edward Edwins Edwin Edwards used to dream about. Only now we’ll want pictures.
For proof, not prurience. Most of us anyway.
That would be Edwin Edwards, unless, of course, you meant it that way.
I’m pretty sure it’s a dead woman/live boy.
Heterosexual shagging would be a badge of honor for EE.
The argument that the press is in the tank-to me -is not supported well. Some media surely are out to get her-others are promoting her as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Plus a lot of ther truth of some of the accusations are based on where you set the bar for acceptable governmental conduct and tax policy.
You can read what ever you want about Palin both good and bad. That’s hardly a monolithic media. Its a free market where you get what you pay for.
You’re right, Mark – thanks. And Kevin, I switched the genders, considering the instant facts.
Skippy-san, perhaps you’re right, but the voices we tend to hear first are those doing the shouting.
Because they are suprised-and you are right, it changes the equation considerably.
But isn’t some of the noise level brought on because she has not been put in front of the cameras unscripted? This is, in recent history, the longest time a new VP candidate has not been in front of interviewers in recent memory. Even Tom Eagleton was out there sooner.
The real thing for McCain is that Obama cannot get heard now-about anything. Smart move. Keep the signal to noise ratio high-which requires a higher threshold receiver. Not built yet. (And who says I slept tho
Damn timer! Slept through radar class.
Anyway-my point is good or bad noise, its still noise and keeps the other signal from being heard. There is a limit on the amount that Obama can increase the gain on his transmitter. Simple laws of physics. His attenae will not support it.
Perhaps, Lex, not many people are aware that there is no land road to Juneau, the capital of Alaska. It sounds kind of weird, and I’m sure they’ll get around to it sometime, now that they don’t have to build the “bridge to nowhere,” but I just checked — and still no road. It’s the terrain, which is difficult to hugely difficult. Folks who want to go to Juneau, or leave it for somewhere else, have to fly or take a boat. Fortunately for Alaskans, lots of them, by necessity, have small private planes. I’m not sure about Sarah, but I know Todd has a private pilot’s license.
At any rate, this would affect per diem expenses, for legislators and the governor. This latest “scandal” is just another demonstration that today’s “journalists” are sloppy researchers, like David Gregory, who doesn’t know the difference between buckshot and birdshot, and is too lazy to look it up.
Marianne
This is just the new Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Lex — the “failure to adhere to the script” thing is like when, in 2005, my lovely wife got this lifelong Orangeblood tickets to the OSU-UT game, in Columbus. Very obvious to the assembled Buckeye Nation, that the script was, “you come here, we beat you, you go home quietly while we celebrate.” Vince Young hadn’t read the script — tossed a TD to Limas Sweed with 2:37 left to put the Horns up, and they went on to win.
The point is, that the 105K there, were certain of an OSU win, and the only sound heard at the end of the game — in a bowl filled with a deafening roar for OSU for almost all of four quarters — was the Texas faithful chanting “Texas – fight”. Could there be the same kind of sounds — and the same shocked side, once so confident of victory — the morning of November 5th?
Skippy-
The argument that the press is in the tank-to me -is not supported well.
HUH? Been watching CNBC lately? Read the news? Even the Networks are starting to realize that the Networks are biased! (Allow myself to introduce…myself.)
In the comments, I found an interesting slam of Palin. The contrast was made of her graduation from an “ordinary” school against Obama’s Columbia BA and Harvard Law.
For the past eight years, we have been told by those shrieking mavens of the left that attendence at an Ivy and post-grad at Harvard mean nothing, and can be had if your connections are right. Now, with affirmative action, exactly how much is Obama’s education worth? Considering that he was made Editor of the Law Review without authoring a SINGLE article, I’d say the proof is in the pudding.
“Now, with affirmative action, exactly how much is Obama’s education worth? Considering that he was made Editor of the Law Review without authoring a SINGLE article, I’d say the proof is in the pudding.”
And, it is important to note, he was the first person in history appointed as Editor of the Law Review without being the academic class leader. So what exactly is that bragging right worth?
I don’t get CNBC.
But as I said-you can get just as much pro-Palin stuff on Fox and several other places.
Noise is still noise though. And in this case there is no Side Lobe Blanking in effect.
Even The Economist has shown a rather backwards bias. They like McCain of course and even said so about 2 issues ago. Then this week my issue arrives and there it is – several slams against Ms. Palin, including the tired question about her “female-ness”.
The Economist has very little problem with McCain, at least not more than they have with Obama. Yet they, like the rest of the (yes Skippy-San) liberal media, are slamming Palin on any point they can find.
Which doesn’t make them any different I guess. But given the source I found it more than surprising.
The MSM has been having a love-fest with the Obama’s from day one; just take a look at the recent magazine cover stories about The Obama’s vs. Sarah Palin. The Obama’s are a normal couple in love; Sarah Palin is a woman with a scandal-ridden family. It’s disgusting.
And while Obama gets a free pass to wrongly accuse McCain of things like racism, Palin gets slammed for understanding the economics behind Fannie and Freddie as a gaffe.
The Economist is hardly a part of the “liberal media”. And they, like a lot of people, simply do not understand the whole out of proportion reaction to Ms. Palin. As has been pointed out by many people to me here time and time again-just because they disagree with what you say does not necessarily mean they are wrong. I happen to think the Economist coverage has been quite balanced about Palin. It takes more than a snappy skirt, a well written speech, and thin glasses to impress them is all.
I’d say the score is pretty equal on smears on the whole-its simply whose ox is gored when. Seems to me its well earned truth when it smacks the guy you are against and its a smear when it smacks the person you like. Where you sit determines what you see.
The Economist has kept all of its criticism of Palin tied to her governing record. Specifically the incongruity of the fact that “thanks in part to Mrs Palin, Alaska’s economy is built on two things that Mr McCain has spent the last few years railing against.”
BTW, its not just the liberal media-Charles Krauthammer is not exactly enamored with her either. He’s anything but a liberal media hack.
re: Seems to me its well earned truth when it smacks the guy you are against and its a smear when it smacks the person you like. Where you sit determines what you see.
Painting with a broad brush there, Skip. Cousin to that whole “hypocrisy” thing you broadsided the rest of us here with last week. Unfairly, I thought.
There’s no doubt some folks have thicker cognitive lenses than others, but a smear is a smear is a smear. For my own part, I’ve been pretty pleased with the tendency of folks ’round these parts to draw conclusions based on the facts in evidence rather than manufacture facts to support their biases. We don’t very often hop on the latest ZOMG!!1! rumor, only to have to row back the next day.
Apropos the lack of news interviews but only scripted speeches, I believe Scott Ott has described it very well, and has a link…
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3101
in the immortal words of Warren Zevon, “Send lawyers, guns, and money….”
Which was my point Skippy-san. Even a publication that is normally a bit more balanced than the rest slid into name calling and equating motherhood with an inability to effectively do the job.
Skip, I got a feeling that putting her in a non-rehearsed speech in a room full of newsies doing a press conference would closely resemble a baby seal hunt…and Sara would have the club. That lady has some serious steel underneath, gents and ladies.
Don’t be so touchy. It was just to point out that claim of media bias works both ways.
For a long time the other side was claiming that the media was carrying John McCain’s water for him. And giving him a pass on valid issues. Others were claiming many of the attacks on Obama’s wife, flag pin, etc etc were smears. I still think that’s similar to what is being said about Ms. Palin.
Kris-we must not be reading the same print edition of the Economist. As far as I can see, they have printed two articles in two successive weeks about her. They also ran two articles about Alaska itself and pointing out how the state is awash in cash-a lot of which comes from federal pork and the rest from windfall profit taxes on oil. They ran one article on how the mayor of Anchorage is having a tough time mounting a challenge to Ted Stevens. (Go their web site and do a search). I cannot find once where they attacked her motherhood. Lexington’s piece were all valid points if you ask me-about her experience and how it invalidates the arguement that Obama is not experienced.
And I think even her staunchest supporter here would say her gender does plays a part in the equation. If she were a male governor of Alaska-she would be just that; just another male govenor with potential. Like Bobby Jindal, or Pawlenty, or Ridge, or Kaine. She’s got sizzle for so many people precisely because she is a woman-and a good looking one too.
SkippyOneNote,
Got your point last week. You don’t like the fact that many around here like the Gov of Alaska for who and what she is. Nor the fact that some think she is being hideously treated. We get it today too. Move on. You are going to give yourself an apoplexy.
GEO6
Q.E.D.
You’re not following all the links. The things Ms Obama said, hizzoner’s decision to stop wearing flag pins – all of these things are facts. Their interpretation is certainly up for debate, but they are not, in themselves, smears.
The business about Gov. Palin’s fifth child really being her daughter’s – since proven pregnant, dutching the timeline – her “cuts” to special needs education funds (she trebled them), the AIP fantasy, the “creationism” bit; all of this either embroidered out of whole cloth or else taken grotesquely out of context.
Motes and beams, brother.
And it does seem that this particular issue has energized you in heretofore unprecedented ways. Just sayin’…
Skippy-san: I never said they attacked her motherhood. If you read the excerpt I quoted above in my first comment – they just had to insert a comment ab0ut how she’s a 44 year old grandmother to be. Substitute the word grandfather and recognize how ridiculous that is as an argument against her.
I am reading the same print edition of The Economist. And they are attacking her on her experience, etc…blah blah blah.
My original point was that even a publication as balanced as The Economist has veered off the path of focus to bring in that she’s a mother. As if it means anything.
It doesn’t. I’m sure her husband is a very capable parent for their children. It doesn’t seem to have been a problem with her success as a Governor, why should it become an issue now.
Let’s have some fun and switch up your last sentence in #21 to be about Obama:
He’s got sizzle for so many people precisely because he is young – and good looking too.
Just how silly does that sound?
re: Byron @ #20…
…she has a club, and it’s “coat making” day.
Biden Attacks Palin as “Backward Step for Women”…
Nope, none of these smears is gaining traction. Meanwhile, Biden’s sexism gets a free pass from the press, and Obama’s long history of being one of the biggest earmarkers in Congres is convenently forgotten….
Its no secret I’m not a fan……….
So yea I’m energized- in my belief that the time is rapidly approaching where America needs a third political party: A liberal party, a conservative party and a party for the masses in the middle. The two party system is dying.
They are going to win. I’m enough of a realist to know that- barring her running over an infant on her ATV-the momentum is in their favor.
Just be careful what you wish for -for you may surely get it.
If you come out swinging like a heavy weight you haveta expect some punches in return. Media Bias… Maybe, but there is plenty to go around. The middle name, rumors of a muslim faith, etc, etc. Counter that with child #5 rumors, inappropriate expenses etc, etc.
It seems that the entire campaign has degenerated into a kindergarten brawl. What about the important things like the economy? I will agree with Skippy, the SNR is about zero when it comes to the stuff that actually might matter.
I don’t recollect the mainstream press pushing those anti-O! memes so much as rebutting them, when they came up at all. Like you though Paul, I think that the press going for the quick slime rather than any deliberate consideration indicates contempt for their readership as much as anything else.
A contempt that is, increasingly, returned.
Hey Lex-are you taking a day off? Or do you just keep the blog on minimize while you grind through PPT drudgery?
What: Were you hoping to conduct a palace coup while I wasn’t around?
Only if you leave the keys to kingdom lying around. I’m here late watching the bulldozers work-as its my turn to close up the shop.