Okay, within the last month or so, Jack Cafferty (who gives new meaning to the phrase "dry drunk") on CNN called Sarah Palin "an empty dress." Let's see, Jack Cafferty is an ugly guy, with a car wreck of a life, a nothing-job on a low-rated cable channel, and no future. Gee, why would somebody like that hate the woman he might end up calling "Madame President."
A while back, Alino Cho, a CNN reporter, was on the morning show with John Roberts & Kiran Chetry, and she cited a study which had determined the most stressful job in America. What was it they asked her? She said, "news show hosts and hostesses." Why. they enquired? She said, "Because they're so afraid of losing their jobs."
If she'd added 'losing their job and their status" she would have explained why the entertainment/media cultures have so many leftists. They are afraid. Somebody might be suspiciouos if they didn't slobber all over Obama. Thus, Sarah Palin gets attacked because people are trying to solidify their status and keep their (over-paid, but basically trivial) jobs.
Sarah Palin is not rich. In fact, she and Todd, because of the legal bills, are in debt up to their eyebrows. Of course, most big-time national politicians (Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, Rockefeller, McCain, Edwards (John), Kerry, Romney, Giuiliani, Gingrich) are not middle-class folks; they're rich males (except for Hillary). Barack Obama's income last year was $2.7 million. Joe Biden made nearly $270,000 -- and gave a whopping $1,900 to charity.
Washington politicians are certainly not mothers (or fathers) of five children. And most of all, they're not from Alaska, which to Beltway types is the equivalent of Al Capp's Dogpatch.
Notable female politicians are not attractive women -- instead they look like Janet Napolitano or Barbara Mikulski or Janet Reno. So, the media response to Sarah was that, if she's that beautiful, she must be dumb as a doorknob. All the women they know fall into that category. Also, she has more than the approved "2.3 children."
If anybody in Hollywood or Manhattan or Georgetown had a Down Syndrome child -- and trust me, they'd have aborted it in a New York minute -- they wouldn't send out a release starting with the words "God has blessed us...." as the Palins did. The reason Trig's maternity gets questioned is that elitists can't imagine anyone actually having such an offspring. Obama's gaffe (on Leno, of course) about the Special Olympics demonstrated what he really thinks about children that would be in said Olympics.
But why has John McCain -- more clueless with each passing day -- joined in with the anti-Sarah crowd? As someone recently said about McCain, "the most important thing to him is that he wants to be a . . . player [in DC]."
McCain was a terrible candidate. Sarah Palin defended him ferociously, and no one else did. He left me, a McCain supporter, wondering what the hell he was doing running for President.
Seriously, the man has been in public life for 30 years, and he still can't deliver a speech that doesn't sound as if he were reading the phone book? He has no idea how to raise money? Conservative don't like him, while liberal despise and make fun of him? Thus, he served as a punching bag for Obama and his (McCain's) supposed "friend," Joe Biden.
It's not surprising that Sarah -- the one bright light for Republicans in the last election -- became the McCain Campaign's "designated scapegoat." By far the most money John McCain ever raised in one 24-hour period ($6 million) in his campaign came on the day he announced Sarah was his pick. And. somewhere in John McCain's increasingly shriveled heart, he profoundly resented it. "Hey, I'm the war hero, so why do they love her more than me?" Because, John, to most Americans you're the old guy that kept their ball when it accidentally rolled into your yard.
The McCain campaign staff apparently resented Sarah because she was able to generate three things they couldn't: crowds, money, and votes. McCain is a guy who abandoned his first (and badly injured) wife. His second wife has kept him in luxury. Women voters rejected him en masse in the election. I bet in high school he brought his cousin to the prom.
Sarah Palin was much more popular with male voters than McCain. Sarah was young, vibrant, healthy, and dynamic, while McCain was none of those. What goes on in McCain's psyche regarding females would make a fascinating psychological study.
He chose Sarah to bring back conservatives (which she did) and to attract (mostly liberal) Hillary Supporters, two contradictory goals. In other words, he set Sarah up to be denounced "because she's not Hillary." True, she's not, for which Todd Palin (and the rest of us) are eternally grateful.
Showing posts with label John Roberts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Roberts. Show all posts
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Does Sarah Need Media Makeover?
As Lorenzo Benet's biography illustrates, Sarah Palin grew up and came to political maturity in a way that's vastly different from almost all our backgrounds. She learned things -- important lessons -- about the world at fundamental levels that her critics will never understand. She's a role model for a better America, one that is more self-reliant and family- and community-oriented. There is no benefit in trying to turn her into an Ivy-League educated suburbanite (i.e., into Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama).
Sarah should talk only to media and audiences that will give her a fair hearing. The others she should ignore. It's certainly worked well for her in recent months.
Regarding whether Sarah should do something of a personality make-over to be more acceptable to the MSM: I believe she should not, which doesn't mean she shouldn't learn from experience and get better at what she does. I have suggested a long list of media people, good ones, that she should not hesitate to talk with, and I'll be putting that list up later today (Tuesday).
In general, I believe she should stay far away from CBS, NBC, and ABC, as well as some other people (like John Roberts and Bill Maher) on cable news. In general, she should also refuse interviews with the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Newsweek, Time, and a few other outlets.
I don't say this because of Sarah's supposed limitations. Rather, I say so because such outlets lack the kind of curiosity and broad-mindedness necessary to understand people who are "different," who grew up in cultures outside the mainstream. That includes someone like Sarah, but also people in other nations who did not grow up in conventional American-style settings.
To paraphrase Sarah, people like Katie Couric have no interest in character and values, which are her strong suits. The good people in the MSM never discuss their own character and values, perhaps because they have few or none. Thus, they can't do justice to someone like Sarah (or to her family).
The Times, WaPo, and others will never be able to elicit the kind of information Greta van Susteren got last night from Bristol (or from Sarah), important facts and sentiments about teen pregnancies and supportive families. Greta is a serious journalist trying to generate useful information, something that's not true generally of the MSM.
I see no upside in Sarah's paying any attention to secularists, materialists, and cynics who share none of her values and thus engage mainly in "gotcha" games. The MSM is heading down the road to oblivion. Fewer people are reading newspapers and watching TV news, and that's all to the good. It's a process we should all seek to accelerate.
n contrast, Sarah is involved in an important dialogue with fair-minded Americans and, hopefully, it will lead to the presidency.
Sarah as President may be more than we deserve, but she's exactly what we need.
Note: Later today, I'll have a list of the media that I believe Sarah should seek to accomodate.
Sarah should talk only to media and audiences that will give her a fair hearing. The others she should ignore. It's certainly worked well for her in recent months.
Regarding whether Sarah should do something of a personality make-over to be more acceptable to the MSM: I believe she should not, which doesn't mean she shouldn't learn from experience and get better at what she does. I have suggested a long list of media people, good ones, that she should not hesitate to talk with, and I'll be putting that list up later today (Tuesday).
In general, I believe she should stay far away from CBS, NBC, and ABC, as well as some other people (like John Roberts and Bill Maher) on cable news. In general, she should also refuse interviews with the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Newsweek, Time, and a few other outlets.
I don't say this because of Sarah's supposed limitations. Rather, I say so because such outlets lack the kind of curiosity and broad-mindedness necessary to understand people who are "different," who grew up in cultures outside the mainstream. That includes someone like Sarah, but also people in other nations who did not grow up in conventional American-style settings.
To paraphrase Sarah, people like Katie Couric have no interest in character and values, which are her strong suits. The good people in the MSM never discuss their own character and values, perhaps because they have few or none. Thus, they can't do justice to someone like Sarah (or to her family).
The Times, WaPo, and others will never be able to elicit the kind of information Greta van Susteren got last night from Bristol (or from Sarah), important facts and sentiments about teen pregnancies and supportive families. Greta is a serious journalist trying to generate useful information, something that's not true generally of the MSM.
I see no upside in Sarah's paying any attention to secularists, materialists, and cynics who share none of her values and thus engage mainly in "gotcha" games. The MSM is heading down the road to oblivion. Fewer people are reading newspapers and watching TV news, and that's all to the good. It's a process we should all seek to accelerate.
n contrast, Sarah is involved in an important dialogue with fair-minded Americans and, hopefully, it will lead to the presidency.
Sarah as President may be more than we deserve, but she's exactly what we need.
Note: Later today, I'll have a list of the media that I believe Sarah should seek to accomodate.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Sarah Palin and "Journalistic Integrity"
People like John Roberts of CNN's "American Morning" are to journalistic integrity something like Hugh Hefner is to marital fidelity.
Recently, John Roberts of CNN interviewed Joseph Wurzelbacher ("Joe the Plumber"), who has written a book on his recent experiences. The media generally doesn't like "Joe's" book, apparently because he's critical of Sen. McCain (which confuses mainstream journalists) and supportive of Gov. Palin.
Of course, Joe has also been critical of the media, which may resent the fact that Joe revealed more about Obama's tax plan in five minutes than the self-proclaimed journalists did in five months.I
n the interview, Joe criticized the MSM for coming after HIM rather than enquiring into Obama's positions. Basically, he suggested the media was a horde out to get anyone who might be critical of The Chosen One.
John Roberts was taken aback. In a major huff, he indicated that Joe, in this comments on the media, had "impugned [his] journalistic integrity."
I laughed when I heard that. John Roberts, a standard Washington/New York liberal, is to journalistic integrity as Hugh Hefner is to marital fidelity. In the campaign, he never resisted the opportunities either to fire zingers at McCain and Palin or to defend Obama and the hapless Biden. Apparently, that kind of political water-carrying is what Roberts regards as "integrity."
Joe the Plumber had penetrated the media sanctum, one reserved for human talking-points like Paul Begala, James Carville, and Donna Brazille. They all respect Robert's "journalistic integrity," although in truth they have no idea what the term means.
Joe the Plumber had seized an opportunity denied to most (of us) who would be critical of the press and their coverage of any political issue. In general, the media only wants people present who are one of them. That way they never need to answer any embarrassing questions.
When Katie Couric ("the little rodent," as Don Imus called her) asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, we all know the "correct" answer: "Well, Katie, I read the NY Times and the Wash Post regularly, along of course with Newsweek and Time and, from time to time, the London Economist and The Wall Street Journal."
In my case, the answer, a truthful one, I would have given Katie was: "I don't read any of them. Why should I? What would they have to tell me that I can't find out from the Internet and other sources?"
Katie Couric probably regards CBS News the way John Roberts does CNN, as an indispensable news source. However, very few people watch CBS News, they having detected that Edward R. Murrow is long gone.But if CBS and CNN are really indispensable (like the auto industry and AIG), we might soon expect a government bailout to keep them afloat in a world that increasingly wishes they would sink to the bottom of the sea.
(Tomorrow: Should Republicans in the era of Obama really seek out Black votes?)
Recently, John Roberts of CNN interviewed Joseph Wurzelbacher ("Joe the Plumber"), who has written a book on his recent experiences. The media generally doesn't like "Joe's" book, apparently because he's critical of Sen. McCain (which confuses mainstream journalists) and supportive of Gov. Palin.
Of course, Joe has also been critical of the media, which may resent the fact that Joe revealed more about Obama's tax plan in five minutes than the self-proclaimed journalists did in five months.I
n the interview, Joe criticized the MSM for coming after HIM rather than enquiring into Obama's positions. Basically, he suggested the media was a horde out to get anyone who might be critical of The Chosen One.
John Roberts was taken aback. In a major huff, he indicated that Joe, in this comments on the media, had "impugned [his] journalistic integrity."
I laughed when I heard that. John Roberts, a standard Washington/New York liberal, is to journalistic integrity as Hugh Hefner is to marital fidelity. In the campaign, he never resisted the opportunities either to fire zingers at McCain and Palin or to defend Obama and the hapless Biden. Apparently, that kind of political water-carrying is what Roberts regards as "integrity."
Joe the Plumber had penetrated the media sanctum, one reserved for human talking-points like Paul Begala, James Carville, and Donna Brazille. They all respect Robert's "journalistic integrity," although in truth they have no idea what the term means.
Joe the Plumber had seized an opportunity denied to most (of us) who would be critical of the press and their coverage of any political issue. In general, the media only wants people present who are one of them. That way they never need to answer any embarrassing questions.
When Katie Couric ("the little rodent," as Don Imus called her) asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, we all know the "correct" answer: "Well, Katie, I read the NY Times and the Wash Post regularly, along of course with Newsweek and Time and, from time to time, the London Economist and The Wall Street Journal."
In my case, the answer, a truthful one, I would have given Katie was: "I don't read any of them. Why should I? What would they have to tell me that I can't find out from the Internet and other sources?"
Katie Couric probably regards CBS News the way John Roberts does CNN, as an indispensable news source. However, very few people watch CBS News, they having detected that Edward R. Murrow is long gone.But if CBS and CNN are really indispensable (like the auto industry and AIG), we might soon expect a government bailout to keep them afloat in a world that increasingly wishes they would sink to the bottom of the sea.
(Tomorrow: Should Republicans in the era of Obama really seek out Black votes?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
