First off, I finally got to see the entireity of Gov. Sarah Palin's address when the late-night replay came on. She did well. I don't think it is difficult for the public to see her as a potential vice president -- and that was the most important thing. I also got to catch Giuliani's address -- it too was well done.
Both of them brought a smile to my face.
A smile I sorely needed.
I must confess that the vicious, biased, outrageous attacks on Sarah Palin, her daughter, her husband, her entire family the past few days have disgusted me. I read reporter after reporter questioning her qualifications and claiming that she hadn't been properly vetted -- all the while ignoring the fact that they haven't done their job vetting Barack Obama.
Did you know that Barack Obama has had a modicum of executive experience? He was the chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. He oversaw the disbursement of more than $100 million to help improve public education in Chicago. Has the media looked into this? Not really unless you count National Review's Stanley Kurtz and he's not yet finished looking into exactly how big a failure the Obama-led reform project ended up being. Not to mention that unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers likely had a hand in getting Obama the job in the first place.
No, instead we get cr*p like this from US Weekly:
This comes from the same publisher who's spent more than $5k on Obama's various campaigns the past couple of years and who is also responsible for these covers:
Is it any wonder that Republicans are resentful of campaign finance "reform" that silences them, but allows the "unbiased" media as much in the way of in-kind contributions as they desire?
For the kicker, check out this interview with the US Weekly magazine editor who helpfully points out that the "lies" referenced on the cover refer to the lefty blogosphere's lies -- not Sarah Palin's.
Yeah, I'll buy that. I'm sure that idiot would be outraged if it was his mug on the cover adorned with the words "child molester" and you had to turn inside to find out that he'd actually turned in his neighbor the child molester.
And it isn't just the celebrity rags. The New York Times' front page story on Palin's vetting that included this line:
Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.
The bolded statement there is false. The article hasn't been corrected yet -- I heard some reporting that the reporter, Elisabeth Bumiller still stands behind the statement, though the person that was her source has now said she made mistake. The paper has not added a correction to the original article. To find the correction, you've got to be reading the paper's politcs blog.
There's a lot more of this to go around. Some of it is even relevant. Whether or not Palin flip-flopped on wanting federal earmarks is certainly something that the media should check out.
But too much of this is garbage. It's especially garbage when you compare the media's zeal with going after Palin with its stubborn refusal to look into Obama's background. The media questions Palin's dedication to her family and whether or not she's a good mother, but pointedly ignores that Obama parked his two young daughters once a week in a church that preached racism and hatred.
The media wonders why its reputation is garbage?
This is why.