Minnesota sends diapered Easter FrankenBunny to the U.S. SenateObviously we need to respond effectively to criticisms directed at Sarah Palin and her family. One problem is that point-by-point refutations are sometimes needed, but they also result in repeating stories, many of them fanciful charges (e.g., Sarah "banned books": Trig's mother is "really Bristol"; and on and on).
The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) is a source of many rumors and smears. Frankly, the ADN is small potatoes, backwater journalism. It's "reader comment" section is dominated by Sarah-haters who revel in baseless charges.
The entire "Troopergate" controversy was bogus. Unfortunately, pro-Sarah bloggers had to spend tens of thousands of hours refuting charges that were baseless. The trooper was a rogue who drank on the job, tasered his own young son, and treated Sarah Palin's sister very badly. By age 35, this "congenial" soul had acquired four wives. He's not exactly what women call a "keeper."
He should have been fired -- although he hasn't yet.
As for Monoghan, the safety commissioner, Sarah had every right to fire him. She regarded him as disloyal to her administration. Yes, he worked for the people of Alaska, but he worked for them through the Governor. If he didn't have the confidence of the Gov. of Alaska, then it was her obligation to get rid of him.
I realize these aren't the usual analyses of the situations (the trooper and the Safety Commissioner), but they're about all I care to do. Sarah likes to get rid of disloyal subordinates (and so do I, by the way). She did the same when she first became Mayor of Wasilla.
My friend and YouTube expert, Rebekah Chauhan in CA, has suggested we ascribe criticisms of Sarah to sexism, which Rebekah says is equivalent to racism. Yeah, in a way this is name-calling, but if the name fits, use it. It's a simple approach.
Very early in the game -- during the Republican Convention -- I was on a TV show in Pittsburgh, debating with two female Obama Supporters. The question came up whether, as Politico had suggested, Sarah was "shrill and inexperienced." My comment was: "Apparently, shrill means she has a woman's voice. Inexperienced means she's a woman . . . and has a woman's (wife's, mother's, working woman's) experience." Simple, but it worked well.
I've had long experience in public relations for some of the country's most controversial industries (oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, health insurance), and I really believe "less is more" when it comes to dealing with (baseless) charges. Point-by-point refutations tend to get us in a situation like Brer Rabbit and the tar baby. It's debilitating.
My response to the "current" controversy regarding Levi Johnston is this. Yeah, teenage parents and 18-year-olds in general make mistakes. As the world knows by now, two of my daughters (nearly two decades ago) had children (one each) before they married the children's fathers. In one case, the father was involved in activities which I didn't, to say the least, approve of.
However, I don't recall being asked for a lot of advice by my "children," who were both young adults when the events occurred. They insisted on their right to make their own mistakes, which they did in abundance.
I'm sure that, like many teen parents, Bristol and Levi will flounder around. Decent people will wish both of them well -- period. Even if I knew Bristol and Levi much better than I do, I'd hesitate to make any judgments about them as people. Ask me again when they're, say, 35.
In the campaign, the oxymoronically named "Obama Truth Squad" worked effectively, mainly because the media allowed it to do so. The MSM is not going to give us in Sarah's camp that luxury. That's why we need to replace the media, which is doing a good job collapsing of its own dead weight, with a new media, i.e., us.
Overall, we shouldn't over-react to what will be an endless stream of petty charges against Sarah and her family. We need to recognize it for what it is: an attempt to smear a woman and her family for being "normal" and for having the same problems and challenges as tens of millions of other American parents and families.
During the convention -- before "the speech" -- one of my frequent correspondents (Eric) said that a McCain staffer told him there were some "devastating" (and apparently credible) allegations against Sarah, etc., etc. (At the time Markos Markos of The Daily Kos was spewing out one lie per hour about Sarah Palin.)
I told Eric this: "You know Sarah well (he'd campaigned in Alaska for her) and I know all about Sarah. And because you know so much about her, you realize that any such allegations are completely false." (I believe they had something to do with Bristol's pregnancy.)
I took a leap of faith in what I said -- faith in the character, values, and essential goodness of Sarah Heath Palin. In the end, I was right, and Eric, along with his "source" were wrong.
The Obama Campaign (one that apparently continues unto eternity) -- basically controlled by people who hate "normal Americans" -- would love for us to spend the next four years (eight years?) refuting absurd charges against Sarah. They don't want us to spend our precious time organizing and emphasizing the kind of positive change Sarah represents.
Obama and his media minions want to destroy Sarah Palin. They will find out eventually that she is indestructible. Carry on, Sarah.
The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) is a source of many rumors and smears. Frankly, the ADN is small potatoes, backwater journalism. It's "reader comment" section is dominated by Sarah-haters who revel in baseless charges.
The entire "Troopergate" controversy was bogus. Unfortunately, pro-Sarah bloggers had to spend tens of thousands of hours refuting charges that were baseless. The trooper was a rogue who drank on the job, tasered his own young son, and treated Sarah Palin's sister very badly. By age 35, this "congenial" soul had acquired four wives. He's not exactly what women call a "keeper."
He should have been fired -- although he hasn't yet.
As for Monoghan, the safety commissioner, Sarah had every right to fire him. She regarded him as disloyal to her administration. Yes, he worked for the people of Alaska, but he worked for them through the Governor. If he didn't have the confidence of the Gov. of Alaska, then it was her obligation to get rid of him.
I realize these aren't the usual analyses of the situations (the trooper and the Safety Commissioner), but they're about all I care to do. Sarah likes to get rid of disloyal subordinates (and so do I, by the way). She did the same when she first became Mayor of Wasilla.
My friend and YouTube expert, Rebekah Chauhan in CA, has suggested we ascribe criticisms of Sarah to sexism, which Rebekah says is equivalent to racism. Yeah, in a way this is name-calling, but if the name fits, use it. It's a simple approach.
Very early in the game -- during the Republican Convention -- I was on a TV show in Pittsburgh, debating with two female Obama Supporters. The question came up whether, as Politico had suggested, Sarah was "shrill and inexperienced." My comment was: "Apparently, shrill means she has a woman's voice. Inexperienced means she's a woman . . . and has a woman's (wife's, mother's, working woman's) experience." Simple, but it worked well.
I've had long experience in public relations for some of the country's most controversial industries (oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, health insurance), and I really believe "less is more" when it comes to dealing with (baseless) charges. Point-by-point refutations tend to get us in a situation like Brer Rabbit and the tar baby. It's debilitating.
My response to the "current" controversy regarding Levi Johnston is this. Yeah, teenage parents and 18-year-olds in general make mistakes. As the world knows by now, two of my daughters (nearly two decades ago) had children (one each) before they married the children's fathers. In one case, the father was involved in activities which I didn't, to say the least, approve of.
However, I don't recall being asked for a lot of advice by my "children," who were both young adults when the events occurred. They insisted on their right to make their own mistakes, which they did in abundance.
I'm sure that, like many teen parents, Bristol and Levi will flounder around. Decent people will wish both of them well -- period. Even if I knew Bristol and Levi much better than I do, I'd hesitate to make any judgments about them as people. Ask me again when they're, say, 35.
In the campaign, the oxymoronically named "Obama Truth Squad" worked effectively, mainly because the media allowed it to do so. The MSM is not going to give us in Sarah's camp that luxury. That's why we need to replace the media, which is doing a good job collapsing of its own dead weight, with a new media, i.e., us.
Overall, we shouldn't over-react to what will be an endless stream of petty charges against Sarah and her family. We need to recognize it for what it is: an attempt to smear a woman and her family for being "normal" and for having the same problems and challenges as tens of millions of other American parents and families.
During the convention -- before "the speech" -- one of my frequent correspondents (Eric) said that a McCain staffer told him there were some "devastating" (and apparently credible) allegations against Sarah, etc., etc. (At the time Markos Markos of The Daily Kos was spewing out one lie per hour about Sarah Palin.)
I told Eric this: "You know Sarah well (he'd campaigned in Alaska for her) and I know all about Sarah. And because you know so much about her, you realize that any such allegations are completely false." (I believe they had something to do with Bristol's pregnancy.)
I took a leap of faith in what I said -- faith in the character, values, and essential goodness of Sarah Heath Palin. In the end, I was right, and Eric, along with his "source" were wrong.
The Obama Campaign (one that apparently continues unto eternity) -- basically controlled by people who hate "normal Americans" -- would love for us to spend the next four years (eight years?) refuting absurd charges against Sarah. They don't want us to spend our precious time organizing and emphasizing the kind of positive change Sarah represents.
Obama and his media minions want to destroy Sarah Palin. They will find out eventually that she is indestructible. Carry on, Sarah.
1 comment:
I think that President "Obama and his media minions" will be focused on more pressing issues.
In 2012, Obama will have to run on his record. If he is reasonably successful, he should easily be reelected but he does face enormous challenges. I'm hopeful that he will be able to get our country back on course.
Sarah Palin faces her own enormous challenge. If she wants to be a viable national candidate in 2012, Governor Palin must remain in the spotlight but she must also realize that every thing she does will be under scrutiny. In 2012, Sarah will no longer be the Republicans' fresh new face and she, too, will have to run on her record.
I think she should focus on being the Governor of Alaska and on getting the big oil companies on board with TransCanada. Governor Palin has a lot of work ahead of her.
Post a Comment