"You've heard the claim from Obama that McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time? Well, it's true," she crowed. While she paused to let that sink in, I waited for her to reveal that the remaining 10% of votes (if the figures are right at all) constituted 30 or 40 % of the major issues where McCain crossed over and co-sponsored bills with the Democrats.
Instead of revealing the significance of voting and bill sponsoring, the reporter went on to play a clip of McCain saying that Obama does not support nuclear energy. In response, her crack team dug as far back as a month ago to find a clip of Obama giving a speech where he says he does support nuclear energy. CNN's source for the revelation? Obama's website rather than his voting record. Why am I not surprised? She concludes for us viewers that McCain is not telling the truth before showing us just a few of the details that could cast doubt on that conclusion.
To sum it up, the reporter says, Obama is telling the truth, and McCain is not. "CNN is doing this," she explains, "to help undecided voters make a decision."
Funny that the detractors have gone back to McCain when they were supposed to have a gold mine of material for attacking Sarah Palin. Why, I wonder, is all that gold plummeting today, while the prospectors are found panning for silver. Normally gold goes up when the stock market goes down.
At first, some Democrats found themselves in paroxysms of ecstasy that the media had swallowed their Drop Palin Express theme hook, line, and sinker. As Alaskan fisherman know, that expression refers to a very big fish that doesn't know food from all the signs of a trap. Most of the mainstream media managed to express their opinion that the McCain camp did not vet Sarah Palin and would release her from the Republican ticket when a couple more revelations came to light (or chickens came home to roost?) The pundits smirkingly explained to us that previous instances of a candidate dropping and swapping their Veep always resulted in a loss for them.
All day, every day, the media hinted that the fatal issue might prove to be about Governor Palin illegally pressuring an official to fire a state trooper just because he was going through a divorce with Palin's sister. But the information they had and hid was that this trooper tasered a ten-year-old boy, and threatened to murder Palin's father. As some of this information began to leak, some left-wing commentators angrily asserted that only the allegations about Palin's actions matter, and that the underlying facts are irrelevant.
What I believe and suspect the American public will understand is that even if the allegations about Palin's office somehow turned out to be true, the real crime is not that an official felt pressured to fire a trooper, but that the organization had closed ranks to protect a criminal with a badge. I would hope that the governor's office of any state would intervene in an egregious case of this kind, and not see that action result in a witch hunt. The public does not have a lot of patience left for expensive, phony investigations, especially if they find out it was driven in part by corrupt members of her own party disgruntled by her reform efforts. So far the polls bear this out.
What the Obama-CNN team, (and Palin's Republican enemies) have done with the manufactured "Troopergate" and all the other fluff is the same thing the Hilary Clinton campaign unwittingly did early on for Obama: inoculate Sarah Palin from future negative attacks by launching early and unfair attacks that would never stick. The same core of people who so badly wanted us to vote for John Kerry and thought they could manipulate that vote with counterfeit documents on Bush's military service, have managed once again to influence us the other way.
No comments:
Post a Comment