If it’s not a liberal perpetuating and spewing slanderous anti-Palin diatribes, it’s an old-tier Republican altogether dismissing her as “inept” and/or “unqualified”. While both sides have their reasons for opposing Sarah Palin’s existence – let alone her stature in the American political schema – their attacks have extended beyond the realm of reason. Most recently, Joe Scarborough delved into the Palin debate, with his half-witted Politico column proving to be little more than a mirror reflection of the left’s consistently unfair and imbalanced anti-Palin commentary.
Scarborough begins his Politico piece by calling Palin a major problem for the GOP, denigrating her as a mere “reality show star” and insinuating that she simply “cannot be elected”. It’s tough to pick a starting point, but allow be to commence with Scarborough’s assertion that Palin is a “problem” for the GOP. First and foremost, why is it such a horrific prospect for Palin to be the “most talked about” figure in the conservative movement? If anything, her star-power has served as a positive force for a number of conservative candidates. When Palin shows up, thousands of people rally and the monies flow in.
So, what’s the issue? Is Palin really that much of a problem for the GOP? Clearly, Scarborough is petrified at the prospect of a Palin White House run in 2012, but dismissing her as a mere “problem” fails to recognize the absolute benefit she serves as a promoter, mouthpiece and fundraising machine for right-leaning candidates.
In terms of Scarborough’s assertion that Palin is not a viable candidate, let’s remember that there have been plenty of people throughout history who’ve been deemed “unelectable” and they’ve shown critics up. In the end, who’s to say whether Palin is or is not “electable”? That’s a decision the American people will have to make if and when the time comes.
Later in the piece, Scarborough (clearly overtaken with sarcasm), writes, “Maybe the publishing world’s favorite reality star can keep drawing attention and selling billions of books by spitting on John Wayne’s grave or “manning up” by shooting an American bald eagle.” He goes on to continue referring to Palin as a “reality star”, as though her time in government was a figment in the minds of Alaskans – and Americans, for that matter. But, that’s beside the point.
Scarborough is so interested in insulting Palin that he omits basic truths and acts as though Palin has been a do-nothing buffoon. He dismisses her resume as “thin” and rants on with the same vitriol one would expect to hear from a career politician railing against an opposing candidate. To his credit, Scarborough writes, “Sarah Palin is not a stupid woman.” But, again, moments of factual clarity are rare in the piece.
Love Palin or hate her, she is only the second woman in American history to campaign for the vice-presidency. She certainly made history and her most notable achievement had nothing to do with reality television. Stringing together a slew of insults that serve as little more than obnoxiously child-like pokes at a figure who has – like it or not – proven herself larger than life does nothing of real value to our democracy (nor does it make a viable case against Palin’s political force).
In a fit of irony Scarborough questions, “What man or mouse with a fully functioning human brain and a résumé as thin as Palin’s would flirt with a presidential run?” Do the words “Barack Obama” ring a bell? Surely they do, though Scarborough sees Obama as vastly more qualified going into the presidency than Palin would be, should she run (another absurd insinuation). I’m by no means stating that I believe Palin should be president in 2012 (or beyond), but I am reaffirming her right to – at the least – run for the presidency. This is America, isn’t it? And even if she doesn’t run, dismissing her as a “problem” and acting as though her impact and viability are non-factors is intellectually dishonest and just plain silly. “Sarah Palin is stupid and/or unqualified” has become liberal code for “I disagree with her belief system” and conservative code for “I’m jealous of her charisma.” Get over it, people.
Scarborough’s concentrated insidiousness seems so over-the-top and uncalled for it’s a wonder anyone advising him would have recommended he publish it. Then again, judging from works produced by the other personalities over at MSNBC, this may be the most conservative piece of “journalism” to spew from the network in years. Perhaps we should be counting our blessings?
The entertainment media’s treatment of Sarah Palin and her family has been abhorrent. Like their biased and unjust hard news media brethren, entertainment outlets have gone out of their way to tarnish Palin’s image. While tabloids, semi-legitimate entertainment programs and celebrities issue incessant praise for President Obama and his leftist policies, Palin is showered with insults and inappropriate slurs. And let’s not forget the ongoing insensitive questioning about the birth of her special needs son, Trig.
Since the end of the 2008 campaign, some of the most glaring examples of the entertainment media’s obsession with anti-Palin coverage have centered on Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin’s baby. Levi, a guy who would be better suited to appear on Tool Academy than he would on any legitimate hard or entertainment news program, has been reaping the benefits from his connection to Palin. In addition to his highly-publicized Playgirl shoot, Levi has been circulating entertainment shows in an attempt to pass off his melba-esque persona as something less than bland.
And, surprise! Since breaking up with Bristol, Levi has had a more-than-warm welcome from entertainment media who are anxious to find dirt on the former Alaska governor. While there is no contestant shortage for 2009’s “Most Idiotic Entertainment News Outlet” category, CBS’s The Insidertakes the cake. Described as a program that “…reports on the dynamic world of breaking celebrity news and offers viewers opposing views on everything …Hollywood!” The Insider touts coverage that is a half-step above highlighting a covert meeting between President Obama and friendly extraterrestrials.
This begs the question: Since when is Sarah Palin “Hollywood?” One could argue that it all started with Kathy Griffin’s antics. In what commenced as yet another plea for attention, Griffin brought Levi toThe 2009 Teen Choice Awards. Clearly, this was little more than a publicity stunt for Griffin, who would likely sell her left kidney if it yielded a decent photo-op. However, in the grander scheme, this was a clear statement to young people: Go ahead and laugh at Sarah Palin. Hollywood’s doing it, so you should too!
For what other purposes would it be appropriate to elevate and promote Levi for all of young America to see if not to embarrass a Republican politician? Of course, Griffin garnered the attention she wanted and Levi was portrayed as a bizarro teen heart throb of sorts. You know you’re in Hollywood when…[insert moment of inhumanity and/or insanity]. The Huffington Post penned the play-by-play back in August:
“Dressed in a pinstripe suit and pink striped tie, the Alaskan teen and father of Sarah Palin’s grandson Tripp arrived hand-in-hand with Griffin, planted a kiss on her cheek for the cameras and did some solo posing as well.”
Gag me.
Anyway, let’s move back to 2009 champion of idiocy: The Insider. This fall, the show decided to reunite Levi and Griffin. During what host Lara Spencer probably mistook as a very riveting and thought-provoking interview, she asked Levi fair-minded questions in the vein of, “Is Sarah Palin really Trig’s mother?” and “Why do you think Sarah Palin is afraid of you?” Following the liberally-driven wingnuttery that ensued during the 2008 presidential campaign, the question about Trig’s birth is breathtakingly cruel and sense-retardant. Spencer’s questioning screamed ratings desperation and showed just how far entertainment media will go to make Palin look idiotic while turning a profit.
Now, let’s jump to Andrew Sullivan’s recent appearance on Joy Behar’s HLN show. According to Sullivan,
“I don`t think [Palin] has much relationship with reality…And I think at some point, if journalists do their job and if brave people stand up and tell the truth, we will find out who Sarah Palin really is. And we currently don`t know.”
These would be the same journalists who did such an excellent job researching the man who currently leads the free world. Insane. And here, too, the story about Trig’s birth is brought into question. Detached from reality? Maybe Sullivan should explore the mental capacity of his interviewer. After all, who can ignore Behar’s detached-from-reality commentary about people who favor Sarah Palin:
“Well her people are evil and nasty. They are not nice people. They send me nasty mail and everybody else who talks about it. Anything negative about Sarah Palin, they get hit with this stuff. You know.”
Ironic that Behar wouldn’t consider her own nastiness as a potential catalyst for negative feedback. Behar has openly called Palin stupid, among other nasally-delivered complements. And the list goes on and on. The entertainment media (which, by my calculation, includes the now theoretically deficient Andrew Sullivan) are intent on making Palin out to be: stupid, evil, incompetent, a mere “Barbie” and insolent, in no particular order.
Get over it, Hollywood. Sarah Palin doesn’t share your values. She’s pro-life, pro-capitalism and pro-rationality. Rather than wasting all of your time lambasting her, promoting Levi and attempting to debunk her very existence, why not divert even a portion of your energy towards examining the man you’ve placed America’s very existence in the hands of. We’ve all got personal dirt. Since you’ll never let up, why not shovel a little less of Palin’s and a little more of Obama’s?
A little fair-mindedness is all we’re asking for. Can you deliver?
Somewhat fresh off the trail from despicable attempts to distort the events and facts surrounding Columbine, 9/11 and the American health care system, filmmaker Michael Moore is back to perpetuate new mis-truths and to face off with a new “villain” – capitalism. In case of shear irony, in his new film entitled, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” Moore sets out to unravel the very system that gives him notoriety, fame and, no doubt, opulence.
Fortunately for Moore, we live in a free society. Despite the fact that his films are comprised of antics and obnoxious absurdities that only small-minded Americans would believe in their totality, he has every right to continue his idiocy. It is the coverage of Moore and his half-witted films that cause one to question the media’s promotional motives.
Mainstream outlets can’t seem to get enough of Moore, as they offer him positive coverage galore and provide him with valuable air time to push his insidious projects. Meanwhile, conservative film projects receive little to no praise – or even attention, for that matter.
A few weeks back, LA Times blogger Patrick Goldstein wrote a snarky post about conservative reaction to Moore’s film. Aside from dismissive commentary about why conservatives are overreacting, Goldstein offered up what he saw as proof that not all media outlets give Moore a free pass. He wrote,
…Variety has the first authoritative review up of Moore’s film — and it hardly reads like a liberal valentine, with just as many caveats as kudos. It calls “Capitalism” one of Moore’s best films but goes on to say: “There’s still plenty here to annoy right-wingers, as well as those who, however much they agree with Moore’s politics, just can’t stomach his oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and goofball japery.”
If calling the film one of Moore’s best ever qualifies as “authoritative,” I suppose journalists asking then-candidate Barack Obama how his parents would feel about his accomplishments if they were still alive qualifies as “hard-hitting investigative journalism.” And don’t even get me started on the semantic inequality present in the penning of “right-wingers” versus “those who…agree with Moore’s politics.”
How about a fact check, Goldstein? Even one? You can’t tell me there isn’t someone refuting at least one of the “facts” present in Moore’s film. It’s not just “oversimplification” that liberals and conservatives, alike, should be concerned about. Moore manipulates events and happenings and creates an aura of understanding that has the foundational value of quicksand. And that brings me to aReuters piece (carried by none other than The New York Times) entitled, “Michael Moore’s “Capitalism” Economical With Facts.” According to the article,
…the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise. Although it’s less focused than “Sicko” or “Fahrenheit 9/11,” this competition entry is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and ofdubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.
In what other venue would a documentary, book or professional record earn the distinction of being of “dubious documentation,” while making strong points that will inspire debate and dialogue? Usually, if the basis is not founded on fact, the argument can – or should, rather – go no further.
The piece goes on to admit that Moore is not known for objectivity or “impeccable” research, and that he favors Obama as a symbol of hope in the film. Now, for the article’s a-bomb. According to Reuters,
Moore has assembled a collection of nearly unbelievable horror stories to illustrate why capitalism and democracy do not go hand in hand, like a privately owned juvenile correctional facility, which paid the local judge to jail teens for misdemeanors.
Wow.
And then there’s the Washington Post piece entitled, “For ‘Capitalism,’ Moore Sells Short Politicians of all Denominations.” The lead says it all: “Just when it looked as if conservatives might be cornering the market on angry populism, along comes Michael Moore.”
I suppose those liberals who threw bleach on delegates at the Republican National Convention were lovable Furby-like creatures – not angry populists. After all, the Republicans have apparently already dominated that market.
I could go on and on. While most American outlets covered the film’s synopsis, scope, theme, etc., many in the mainstream media failed to point out Moore’s glaring hypocrisy. How can a man who has makes millions off of his anti-American rhetoric have the audacity to make a film about the evils of capitalism? It took the gusto of a British journalist to really delve into the insanity. The Telegraph’s Will Heaven wrote the following:
Don’t be fooled by the scruffy cap and trampish demeanour. Moore is as well-to-do as the “stupid white men” which he has made millions of dollars from criticising…
Sadly for Michael Moore, many of the people that should be watching his films don’t get the joke either. He is supposed to be the champion of the oppressed, who spends his career holding the rich and famous to account. Now he’s one of them, and lapping up the lifestyle like a banker in boom time, it makes no sense.
Kudos to Heaven and The Telegraph for writing the most honest piece I’ve seen on Michael Moore’s deafening hypocrisy. While American media outlets seem encapsulated in wonder by Moore’s outlandish work, it seems the Europeans – who are typically quite receptive of his films – are onto his antics. Now, if we could only get the rest of America and the media on board the “reality express,” we’d be golden.
“You do your homework, you do your research, we always did, whatever you think of my work. Even going back to ‘JFK,’ I’ve always done as much research as we could. And there’s mistakes made, but there’s a lot of truth, you know, as much as we can put into these movies.” – Oliver Stone, as quoted in the L.A. Times.
Irony is what happens when a Hollywood director (Oliver Stone) goes to Latin America, produces a film favorable to one of the most maniacal and politically obnoxious figures in the region (Hugo Chavez), and then returns to the States to tout what he sees as his own astounding “research” skills. In what world would legitimate research on Chavez result in any favorable representation in film or any other venue, for that matter?
Even more concerning than Stone’s own tweaked coverage and perception of the dictator is the L.A. Times’ representation of the film – and shall I say, meager, questioning of its tenants. In an article byTimes journalist Reed Johnson, the paper, in all of its glory, referred to Chavez as a “…former military officer turned democratically elected socialist leader.” Talk about niceties.
While admitting that the film does not provide diverse views on Chavez, the article only mentions “dust-ups” with media outlets opposed to the regime and Chavez’s role in assisting radicals in rallying against Columbia’s government (but these mentions come only in the context of what the film, itself, does not cover).
Sadly, the piece serves as a bullhorn for Stone’s own views on the evils of America and his infatuation with the Venezuelan dictator’s charm. Instead of raising facts and figures from those who would disagree with anti-American rhetoric, the piece does little to provide well-rounded perspective. Johnson writes:
In his new documentary “South of the Border,” Oliver Stone is shown warmly embracing Hugo Chavez, nibbling coca leaves with Evo Morales and gently teasing Cristina Elizabeth Fernández de Kirchner about how many pairs of shoes she owns.
These amiable, off-the-cuff snapshots of the presidents of Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina, respectively, contrast with the way these left-leaning leaders often are depicted in U.S.”
The article makes no real effort to delve into the human rights violations that Chavez champions in Venezuela. And while one can argue that this wasn’t the purpose of the article, Stone is minimally pressed to answer further about why he’s avoided these issues. If the L.A. Times felt it so necessary to provide a platform for Stone’s work, why not also provide a framework through which readers could better understand why many Americans dislike Chavez’s restrictive regime? The U.S. retains a negative view of Chavez with good reason.
Take the following statement from Human Rights Watch (coincidently, not a right-leaning group by any stretch of the imagination):
On September 18, we released a report in Caracas that shows how President Hugo Chavez has undermined human rights guarantees in Venezuela. That night, we returned to our hotel and found around twenty Venezuelan security agents, some armed and in military uniform, awaiting us outside our rooms. They were accompanied by a man who announced—with no apparent sense of irony—that he was a government “human rights” official and that we were being expelled from the country.
The official reason for their expulsion? “[Violating] the constitution by criticizing the government while on tourist visas.” Ironically, they weren’t even on tourist visas. But this is only one example. One wonders what happens to Venezuelan citizens who dare question Chavez’s authority. Note: The L.A. Times may not be the place to go to collect this information.
And, while the Times would apparently seek to focus, as does Mr. Stone, on the fact that Chavez is “democratically elected,” let’s review the radicalization we’ve seen coming from his administration – violations that the L.A. Times confirms Stone left out of his leftist propaganda.
According to The New York Times, following re-election in 2006…
“[Chavez] nationalized electrical companies, asserted government control over oil projects in the Orinoco forests and withdrew from the International Monetary Fund. He also cracked down on television stations that had been critical of him, and proposed a referendum on constitutional changes that would centralize power in the presidency and remove term limits for the post.”
Ahh, a whiff of democracy!
Oh, and did I mention that Venezuelan voters democratically turned down his insane referendum? Would it have killed Johnson to merely mention of the constrictive actions that pose concern not only to conservative groups in America, but also to the leftist Human Rights Watch? Probably not. To those completely unfamiliar with Venezuelan politics, this article did little more than promote Stone’s film.
Ironically, Stone – an artist – doesn’t address Chavez’s media restrictions and state-run outlets (apparently love for a dictator of sorts trumps his love for the arts). And the Times, a supposed-democratic tool, also declines to delve into this important detail. Both would have us to believe that the heinousness Chavez inflicts on the citizens of his nation – and on the arts and media – is good old democracy at work. Insane.
