Sarah Palin is Right to Call Out the Lamestream Media

Chris Cillizza published an article on Tuesday titled "Why Michele Bachmann is no Sarah Palin, part 2" (part 1 indicates that Bachmann's use of DC-based, GOP insiders for her campaign as a plus, I kid you not). While I agree with the title of the piece, I certainly disagree with Cillizza as to why Bachmann is no Palin, a topic I have written about before. He starts off:

The controversy over a photo of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann that appears on the cover of Newsweek magazine this week has drawn comment from people all over the political world.

Except for one: Bachmann herself...

That (relative) silence affirms a simple but important truth of this campaign: Michele Bachmann is no Sarah Palin...

Palin, the former governor of Alaska, has spent the last several years pursuing an aggressive strategy aimed at villainizing the lamestream, er, mainstream media — insisting that they regularly print inaccuracies about her and her family

Her no-grievance-left-unanswered approach has won her kudos among her supporters but has left voters outside of the base confused as to what issues she truly cares about besides the alleged bias of the media.

Here he suggests that Governor Palin responds to ALL instances of media bias. That simply isn't true! If Governor Palin responded to every garbage-filled, biased article from the press, she literally would have no time for anything else in her life. And that includes eating and sleeping.

Then Cillizza writes that Palin's "approach... has left voters outside of the base confused as to what issues she truly cares about besides the alleged bias of the media." Honestly, only self-absorbed members of the media are "confused" on that matter. Americans in the know understand that Governor Palin cares deeply for this country's state of affairs. They have read her insight on issues such as the nation's downgraded credit rating, raising the debt ceiling, the deficit, the Obama administration's distribution of missile defense secrets, the war in Afghanistan, borrowing money from foreign lenders, respecting our allies, health care, energy development, fiscal prudence, the list goes on and on. For Cillizza to not acknowledge any of that, is in itself, another example of media bias. But then again, his whole article is.

He continues:

Bachmann’s refusal to engage in an extended back and forth over the Newsweek cover coupled with her approach to stories raising questions about her ability to cope with migraine headaches suggests she is taking a very different tack.

During the migraine episode and now with the Newsweek flap, Bachmann is hewing rigidly to her economic/jobs message — knowing that the vast majority of people who will vote for her in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have the economy and not much else on their minds right now.

That's why, as I just wrote (complete with links) that Governor Palin has focused most of her recent statements on the economy. Everybody is concerned about our economic conditions, because everybody feels the effects of the reckless fiscal policies of the current administration.

That said... didn't Bachmann's staff get in a little trouble for pushing around Brian Ross from ABC for asking a question about those migraine headaches? Seems they were taking a "no-grievance-left-unanswered approach" if you ask me.

Cillizza ends by writing:

What Bachmann grasps that Palin either didn’t/doesn’t (or chose not to) is that by commenting on these questions of media bias only leads to more and more stories. It’s like pouring a can of lighter fluid on a small fire...

The broader strategic calculation Bachmann appears to have made is that she needs to expand beyond her political base rather than simply deepen her supporters’ connection to her in order to be something more than a sideshow in the nomination fight.

It’s the right one.

Is it? I don't think so...

He writes that "by commenting on these questions of media bias only leads to more and more stories. It’s like pouring a can of lighter fluid on a small fire." But in the beginning of his piece he wrote that the Newsweek cover of Bachmann had "drawn comment from people all over the political world." So, no, ignoring constant attacks, hit-pieces, etc. does nothing to make them go away. Bachmann has ignored the "Queen of Rage" Newsweek article, yet it was still talked about on every news channel, and on every political news site. Are there "inaccuracies" in the Newsweek article? Probably, but really I don't know because I never heard Bachmann's take. It should also be noted that the women's group "NOW" spoke out against the Newsweek cover photo

Something Governor Palin wrote to the freshman members of Congress came to mind as I was reading Cilizza's piece. She wrote:

When the Left in the media pat you on the back, quickly reassess where you are and readjust, for the liberals’ praise is a warning bell you must heed.

This applies to 3rd term congressional members as well. You see, the liberal press will praise any conservative who permits their attacks. When they are not in the process of attacking them of course, and only when they are using their lack of response to attack another conservative.

I have worked in a media environment for well over a decade. I watched all eight years as the press annihilated George W. Bush's reputation and he never fought back. In all honesty, I lost a certain amount of respect for Bush for not standing up to the corrupt media. He allowed them to define him and the issues his administration were coping with. Which, whether Bachmann knows it or not, she is allowing them to define her as well. The Bachmann camp may think it makes her look "presidential" or some such nonsense, but the damage is already being done.

Now is not the time for pushovers. Now is also not the time to sit back and act like we have an objective media in this country. Americans have a right to know when the media is lying, being lazy, or just plain left-wing ideologues. There is nothing wrong with Governor Palin defending herself, she should! After all, as you may recall from the beginning of this piece, she doesn't have all those respect-worthy GOP insiders going to bat for her. Governor Palin does just fine without them.

Washington Post Reviews "The Undefeated"

It certainly says something about the upcoming documentary, The Undefeated, based on Governor Palin's life and record, that a media organization as hostile as the Washington Post is to her, could write a review this fair. In an article published at WaPo today, they wrote:

Produced and directed by conservative filmmaker Steve Bannon, “The Undefeated” was not paid for by Palin, nor did she influence its content in any way, Bannon said at a screening of the film for reporters Thursday morning in the offices of small video production company in Arlington.

You wouldn’t know it from the deeply sympathetic movie, which portrays Palin as a devoted wife and mother — and a hugely successful political leader whose quintessentially Alaskan spirit propelled her to stand up to corporate interests and the political establishment both as mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska.

[...]

The movie begins with the story of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, a disaster that Palin’s husband, Todd, described as “heartbreaking” — and that Palin cites in her autobiography, “Going Rogue,” as one of the defining events that propelled her to seek public office.

“I was a young mother-to-be with a blue-collar husband heading up to the slope,” Palin said. “If I ever had a chance to serve my fellow citizens, I would do so, and I’d work for the ordinary hardworking people.”

“The Undefeated” explores Palin’s rise to mayor of Wasilla and credits her with bringing a fiscally conservative philosophy to the job and for opening up the region as a booming bedroom community to Anchorage. It also explores her term as governor, characterizing her as standing up to oil companies over drilling rights, successfully advocating to build a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope and facing down cronyish state lawmakers in the pocket of the energy industry.

The movie includes no direct interviews with Palin, but it does feature the former governor reading short excerpts from “Going Rogue.” Bannon said he met with Palin a few weeks ago in Phoenix, where she told him the movie “blew her away.”

[..]

t also reminds viewers how popular Palin was as an elected leader in Alaska: She won reelection to mayor of Wasilla with more than 70 percent of the vote, and she resoundingly defeated then-governor Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary for governor in 2006. Before she became Sen. John McCain’s running mate in 2008, her approval rating among Alaskans soared above 80 percent.

The movie is clearly structured to push back against the widely held view that Palin lacks the leadership experience or skills to be president. Bannon, the director, even compared Palin’s term as governor to that of former President George W. Bush, concluding: “What she accomplished in Alaska is demonstrably much more impressive than what he accomplished as governor of Texas.” He added: “I wouldn’t have made this film if I didn’t think we needed a leader like her, and I hope she runs for president.”

You can read the article in it's entirety here.

Kathleen Parker Misinterprets Sarah Palin's New Book

I ran across this article late last night and it honestly made me a little embarrassed for Kathleen Parker. She seems to have let her preconceived notions about Governor Palin dictate her internal debate about what 'American values' represents. Parker starts off:

We've heard much these past few years about "small-town values," most recently iterated and personified by Sarah Palin.

When politicians speak of small-town values, we know what they mean. Generally, they are invoking family, faith and flag -- coincidentally the subtitle of Palin's next book, "America by Heart." In the politician's world, small towns are where "real Americans" live, as opposed to all those other people -- the vast majority of Americans -- who live in urban areas.

I have a question for Ms. Parker... Where in the description of Governor Palin's new book, "America by Heart : Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag" does it exclude people who live in urban areas? Here is the entire book description from the Governor's publisher, HarperCollins to show just how off-base Parker is with her last column.

In the fall of 2009, with the publication of her #1 national bestselling memoir, Sarah Palin had the privilege of meeting thousands of everyday Americans on her extraordinary 35-city book tour. Inspired by these encounters, her new book, America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag, celebrates the enduring strengths and virtues that have made this country great.

Framed by her strong belief in the importance of family, faith, and patriotism, the book ranges widely over American history, culture, and current affairs, and reflects on the key values—both national and spiritual-that have been such a profound part of Governor Palin’s life and continue to inform her vision of America’s future. Written in her own refreshingly candid voice, America By Heart will include selections from classic and contemporary readings that have moved her-from the nation’s founding documents to great speeches, sermons, letters, literature and poetry, biography, and even some of her favorite songs and movies. Here, too, are portraits of some of the extraordinary men and women she admires and who embody her deep love of country, her strong rootedness in faith, and her profound love and appreciation of family. She will also draw from personal experience to amplify these timely (and timeless) themes—themes that are sure to inspire her numerous fans and readers all across the country.

I reread it several times and nowhere does it state that this book has only to do with "small towns." You can undoubtedly attribute such things to a small town, however this does not mean it automatically excludes urban areas by default.

The meat of the column is a long detailed description of Parker's old 'hood,' if you will. She doesn't understand why the values shared by her and her neighbors aren't considered "small town values." Ah, nobody said they weren't Kathleen, but if you want to talk about the fact the so-called, ruling "elite" in this country are out of step with most "real Americans," we can have that discussion.

She ends her piece this way (emphasis mine):

So goes life in the city. But if those aren't small-town values, I don't know what we're talking about. All the inferences one has drawn from reading the foregoing are meant to be taken to heart. Families come in many configurations. And small-town values have nothing to do with small towns.

No ma'am, they don't. Living in an urban environment myself, complete with concrete, loud buses, and homeless people, I can attest to the fact that the area in which one lives has only so much to do with their values. We have all walks of life in my neighborhood. The good, the bad, the poor, the better-off than the poor... The hard-working, the religious, the public servants, the warriors, the athletes, the moochers, the artists, the patriots, etc... This is a working-class neighborhood whose residents have a pretty good understanding of "Family, Faith, and Flag." Somehow it never occurred to me that Governor Palin was excluding this neighborhood when she talks about "America." Perhaps that's because she was not.

The notion that Kathleen Parker devoted an entire column to a misinterpretation of the definition of "Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag," is laughable. Here we have a Pulitzer Prize winning writer using her space to tell readers what she thinks Sarah Palin will mean in talking about these things, in a book nobody has read yet. In fact, I have no clue how much of it is actually written at this point. Yet, here's Parker already denouncing Palin's anti-city mentality, as if that were the case at all.

Kathleen Parker continues her decline into obscurity with such strange analysis, and the Washington Post continues it's hard turn to the left. The Journolist scandal, with it's founder and many known members as writers working for the Post, along with people like Parker representing the "conservative voice," proves they are not in the business of unbiased reporting.

I just hope Kathleen Parker doesn't ponder too many aspects of Governor Palin's book before she reads it. We may have to endure column after column of her own internal debates about the meaning of something nobody ever said in the first place.

Ruth Marcus' Distorted Commentary on Sarah Palin

Today is just another day, which means another day for the media to lie, spin, and distort anything Sarah Palin does or says. Our shinning example for the day would be by Washington Post Columnist, Ruth Marcus in an article she wrote titled "Sarah Palin's fact-free commentary on Paul and BP."

Ruth claims that an interview Governor Palin gave to Chris Wallace on FOX last Sunday "pushed" her "over the edge." I certainly hope she can recover from that... Marcus had a good cranky rant about Rand Paul, which I'm not going to get in to here. Rachel Maddow's "gotcha' moment with Dr. Paul has been discussed ad nauseum by others and I wholly agree with Governor Palin that one shouldn't have theoretical discussions with "TV character's" that want to harm them, politically.

Ruth Marcus then went on to attack Governor Palin for mentioning the obvious. That being the fact that IF President Obama were a Republican, the Lamestream media would most likely have a different narrative playing on the pages of their publications and on their news programs in regards to the administrations response to the Gulf oil leak. At the very least, they would have mentioned the fact that Obama received the largest sum of campaign cash from the oil company responsible for the leak, British Petroleum, in the last twenty years. Marcus said:

Then there was Palin's best-defense-is-an-untrue-offense response to questions about the oil spill in the Gulf. The cheerleader for "drill, baby, drill" suggested that President Obama was in the pocket of Big Oil:

She then attempts to quote Governor Palin:

"The oil companies who have so supported President Obama in his campaign and are supportive of him now -- I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others if there's any connection with the contributions made to President Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration. If there's any connection there to President Obama taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there, and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico."

Marcus quite obviously left some keys words out of the quote. What Governor Palin actually said in full context:

I think that there is perhaps a hesitancy to — I don't really know how to put this, Chris, except to say that the oil companies who have so supported President Obama in his campaign and are supportive of him now — I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others if there's any connection with the contributions made to President Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration.

If there's any connection there to President Obama taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there, and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico — now, if this was President Bush or if this were a Republican in office who hadn't received as much support even as President Obama has from B.P. and other oil companies, you know the mainstream media would be all over his case in terms of asking questions why the administration didn't get in there, didn't get in there and make sure that the regulatory agencies were doing what they were doing with the oversight to make sure that things like this don't happen.

I take it Ruth Marcus didn't bother to do much research before writing this article because Governor Palin reinforced this point that her criticism was actually directed at the media more so than Obama when she wrote the following on her Facebook page:

In the course of discussing the administration’s failure to get to grips with the oil spill, I pointed out that the media was rather silent on asking if there was a connection between the White House’s hands-off response to the spill and the undisputed fact that Barack Obama was BP’s top recipient of both PAC and individual money for the last 20 years. Please note that I never claimed there was a conspiratorial connection; rather, I was saying that it’s odd that so few in the media have asked that question. In fact, I believe Major Garrett is one of the few reporters to pursue the issue. You can be sure that if this were a Republican administration, at the very least the media would be asking that question nonstop.

I had no trouble interrupting what Governor Palin said at the time. I knew she was criticizing the media for taking it's current day role as administration lapdog, instead of an objective press. Perhaps Ruth has journalist blinders on that inhibited her view of the point that was being made. I really don't think that is the case however. The truth is that Governor Palin was right and I think Ruth Marcus knows it.

I sat in a news room through the entire Bush presidency. I witnessed the media try to frame almost everything that man did during his term as some sort of 'payoff' to his "oil buddies." From the wars we were in, to Hurricane Katrina, to the nation's energy policies... The media had a 'Bush is a corrupt oil man' meme going and they ran with it for eight long years. The meme is no longer in play during an Obama administration.

Did Ruth Marcus just miss the point, or did she try to distort the premise of the argument? I think the answer to that question is pretty clear.

Marcus self-righteously declares in the article that"Facts are stubborn things." Indeed they are and I couldn't agree more, Ruth! Fortunately for the rest of society, we have access to them outside of the dinosaur press.