The more that comes out from the mainstream media about Sarah Palin, the more it seems we have widespread mental illness in the press:
BOTTOM LINE: Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story. And she may well face further criticism for the timing and scope of her remarks.What else but utter madness would compel such a flip-flop? They should be apologizing. The big media rode the Krugman, Olbermann, Dupnik express to hatertown and brought her into the story unnecessarily--the sheriff even treating her as an accessory to murder--then when she responds they accuse her of making it all about Sarah and playing the victim card? Insane.
If not craziness then it must be craziness like a fox. Or crazy after Fox. In other words, they baited her into coming out by tying her to s shooting spree, completely disregarding the human tragedy and all legitimate debate points. Right now some are hyperventilating over the term 'blood libel', which apparently the Jews had exclusive rights to (well, not all of them). Whatever it takes to punish their enemies.
Hey, it's not kosher (oops) to throw around unsubstantiated allegations, but perhaps the real finger of blame in ascribing Loughner's actions--assuming they come from anywhere outside his strange head--is that he lives in a society where such disingenuous hacks are not laughed out of town or ridden out on rails. Instead they are given important titles like anchor, journalist, reporter or sheriff.
BTW--Yes, the timing of her remarks was strategic, coming before Obama's address tonight. Not sure if she just wanted to get something out to preclude more damage (assuming Daley will let the O stray from the tele) or something else. The press obviously keyed on the blood libel phrase to divert from the rest of her remarks, which were excellent and to the point and condemned the hades out of -- them. But that's how team Alinsky rolls. I will say that team Palin should have considered that Giffords is Jewish and realized how that might be spun.
THE MEMORIAL SERVICE 1/12/11
I'll try to be magnanimous here--the president gave a good eulogy and stayed within partisan bounds. Memorials are strange sometimes as to reactions. And the best way to memorialize someone is to talk about their positives and attempt to project those forward. He did that. I'll not comment on the cheering section other than to say it was weird and probably part of the program. After all, this was about Obama as much as the victims. The newspapers even handicapped that beforehand. And if so, he scored a few goals with the crowd's help.
Otherwise, the Mexican Indian's "blessing" was bizarre but I guess that's an Arizona thing. I kind of like how the Indians believed in God (great spirit) without ever being told of one by the white man; and for some reason they never take any grief for believing in one.
Jan Brewer's speech was good, about the right length, but I thought I faintly heard some boos before she went on. Napolitano got raucous cheers for reading a passage of the Old Testament--that's even wilder than the Indian. And Holder said Jesus, also to applause.
But the 20 year old was the most impressive of all due to his humility, steadiness, and genuineness. Mr. Hernandez is quite a man.
What was the takeaway from this speech? Was it cherishing the memories of those slain and wishing for a better tomorrow along with finding cures to mental illness? Or was it improving the tone of partisan debate? If most people say the latter then Obama has successfully hoodwinked the masses and media.
If the speech was intended to promote better dialog, etc, then Obama should have self-confessed. Otherwise it was a stern lecture despite the emphatic "it's not" rejoinder made to sound like a rebuke. The only rebuking required was towards those who acted stupidly and jumped to conclusions, so if the press/masses come away with the civility lesson above a genuine concern for the victims of what looks to be a man with mental illness, then it was an epic fail.
Limbaugh was remarking about the warm fuzzies thrown around by Fox while typical liberals were actually chastising the 'rally' atmosphere. As usual he's onto something. Fox may well have been afraid to chastise the speech for fear THEY would be accused of souring the debate during a memorial. It's the same goal sheriff Dupnik was trying to promote--chill speech on the right. And just as the House is spinning up towards repeal. Boehner was smart to stay away--after all, no congressperson was being memorialized--she survived.