Single Page
Pigs do fly. The New York Times publishes a column praising Palin's speechSarah Palin's fans were shocked when they went online Friday morning to find this column in the New York Times editorial section, praising Palin’s Iowa speech last Saturday and lambasting the media for failing to take note of her message against crony capitalism and what she called the “permanent political class." Here's how Palin put it in her speech on Saturday:
“Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the ‘far left,’” the guest columnist Anand Giridharadas wrote in the NYTs, “she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide.” Giridharadas said it was a message that would have appealed to the left, had it been anybody other than Palin who delivered it. But that's not so surprising to Alaskans, who know that the one thing Palin hates more than establishment Democrats is establishment Rebublicans. Indeed, Palin seemed to be nearly channeling Ralph Nader, who once said (among many, many other things): “The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door.” Giridharadas wrote that with that speech, Palin just got “more interesting.” Wonder if Nader would say the same. It is no secret, that the 'media assault' approach to Palin has actively "backfired". That Palin says something, anything, and the entire audience (Red & Blue) is SHOCKED when NYT's response is NOT to punch, kick, slap, spit, lather, rinse, repeat ... does tell how "locked" a large part of institutionalized media is on a reflexively biased response to Palin. Even when she emits something that, coming from any other human being, would be hard to find fault with, we fully expect NYT to spare no effort finding a hostile angle. Could it be, that they're trying something different: being reasonable about Palin? Even (gasp) professional? Seems unlikely, but the consequences would be weighty ... so we will monitor closely, just on the off chance. Albert Einstein left a lot of quotable quotes, too. He once said, "(among many, many other things)": "I believe, indeed, that overemphasis on the purely intellectual attitude, often directed solely to the practical and factual, in our education, has led directly to the impairment of ethical values. I am not thinking so much of the dangers with which technical progress has directly confronted mankind, as of the stifling of mutual human considerations by a "matter-of-fact" habit of thought which has come to lie like a killing frost upon human relations. ... The frightful dilemma of the political world situation has much to do with this sin of omission on the part of our civilization. Without "ethical culture," there is no salvation for humanity." Yes ... one could well wonder if Ms. Palin is channeling Dr. Einstein! Ya know, if $P had actually written that speech and understood what she was reading, I would give her the first attaboy ever about the corporate cronyism comment. But we know she did not write the speech, nor did she understand it. Who does she think has bankrolled her rise to power? CORPORATIONS did so to USE her. Or maybe she thinks Murdoch just <3's her? She knows firsthand about corporate cronyism. Hiring her HS BFF's to high paying positions in government - cronyism. Wasting million of Alaska dollars on her friends who created Dairygate. And the list goes on... So this latest diatribe from Palin is nothing new. However the writer seems to take aim at the media for "dwelling" on the question of Palin's run for POTUS, post her speech. Good grief, how lame to basically scold the media, considering Palin said she would be ready for a announcement by Labor Day weekend. Hello? Anybody there? Knock, knock... Palin said she would be ready to make a announcement the begining of September. "Palin said she would be ready to make a announcement the begining of September." Well, certainly in the last few weeks, she has clearly bracketed the middle-to-end of September. In nationally published interviews ... on camera ... recorded! ;) I think this is probably "it". (Tho some have thought they heard noises point to, and see factors supporting, a first-days of Oct. timing ... but it sounds to me like she will look bad (to those who support her) if she doesn't follow through in Sept.) The weakness of Obama raises the profile of Palin's decision. If it was looking like the election would be the usual Incumbent's-to-lose affair, then un-Obama voters could just run their favorite fantasy up the flag-pole. But Obama is now openly regarded as "vulnerable". Even by his own supporters. Now, the no-more-Obama crowd are pointing out, fantasies are better kept in the bedroom. So ... if Palin is going to be "in", then those of us who are "willing" to go with her, but not necessarily "worshipful" of her, "at any price", and esp. not at the price of losing a good shot at undoing recent White House policy - and Law - we don't like ... need to see her NOT ONLY relieve us of the waiting-game, but take positive steps to signal to us that she is reading the Presidential chessboard the same way we are. That is what I am now waiting to see ... and I do not believe we should have to wait more than a few days after she announces, to start getting good hints that she is going to play the campaign as tho it is her election to lose, rather than the usual what-the-hell shot-in-the-dark against a usually can't-be-beat-anyway incumbent President. It is even possible that she could start laying down the right kind of hints, *before* her announcement. I 'assume' she aims to run. If she does not, that clears the decks for TEA to influence the Primaries 'at will', without having to take 'pivotal' consideration of Palin. And that would be as agreeable to me, as a 'serious' Sarah Palin run. |
Comments