Sarah Palin and the liberal media

September 3, 2008 in Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, education, liberal conspiracy, liberal media, Sarah Palin

Sorry for another post on politics but I am so pumped about McCain’s choice for VP: Sarah Palin!!!!!!

Even the liberal media cannot find anything bad to say about Sarah Palin. They seem to be trying, though. But all they can come up with is saying great things about her and pretending like they are bad things.

Wired News reports that she wants creation taught in public school science classes. But they say it like it’s a bad thing.

From the New York Times we learn that she supports drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (though McCain claims to be against it). She is not convinced that global warming has been related to human activities. She has only had a passport for a year, and thus, has only recently been out of the great United States of America. This shows that her priorities are in the right place. Research has shown that people who spend a lot of time in other cultures become less dogmatic. Dogmatism is important in a good leader. We can’t have people who change their minds or learn. The NYT further reports that McCain’s campaign reported that they believed Palin “would be able to be educated quickly”.

Even the ultra-wacko-liberal source Feministing had several nice things to say about her:

She’s against marriage equality and supports a federal gay-marriage ban, but has made sure to note that she “has gay friends.”

The Times of India reports that “God and guns are on the ticket” going on to say that she “can help the Republicans target gun owners. She is a member of the National Rifle Association…” My question for those who think this is a bad thing: why aren’t you a member of the organization that fights for every Christian’s right to own an object which is designed to kill, incapacitate, and/or terrify? You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Katha Pollitt writes for the Nation:

Palin is a rightwing-christian anti-choice extremist who opposes abortion for any reason whatsoever, except to save the life of the girl or woman. No exception even for rape, incest, or the health of the woman. No exception for a ten-year-old, a woman carrying a fetus with no chance of life, a woman on the edge of suicide– let alone the woman who is not ready to be a parent, who is escaping domestic violence, who is already stretched to the limit as a single mother.

So, the liberal press is coming around to praise her. What else could they do?

Ted Anthony of the AP writes about her qualifications to be VP (or president for that matter):

What about her oversight of her state’s National Guard contingent? Her experience as a mother? And, hey — what about the fact that she runs a state that happens to be very close to Russia?

He then goes on to detail each of these. Since he can’t find anything negative in reality against her, he then goes on to argue that these qualifications aren’t good enough. Well, they’re more than enough for me, buster! And according to Fox News, she is more qualified than Obama!

Here is another qualification that Anthony didn’t mention: her highest degree is a BS in communication-journalism from the University of Idaho. Compare this with Obama who has a BA from Columbia in political science and international relations and a Juris Doctor from Harvard! This guy is totally entrenched in the liberal education conspiracy. He even taught constitutional law for twelve years at the University of Chicago law school!

But back to Palin. Once again from Wired news:

She has infuriated environmentalists  for her support of the aerial shooting of wolves as a way to build up herds of moose and caribou. She’s also sued the Interior Department for putting  polar bears on the endangered species list.

OK, enough in praise of Sarah Palin. I have to admit that there are a couple of legitimate criticisms.

1. She claims that she opposed the “bridge to nowhere” when, in fact, she supported it and advocated it until after the media attention convinced congress to cut it out of the budget.
2. She allegedly pressured a member of her cabinet to fire her sister’s ex-husband and fired the cabinet member when he refused to do so.

As to item 1: so what? Everybody in politics is corrupt.

As to item 2: again, so what? What harm could possibly come from a president who uses his or her power to take revenge for an old offense against a family member? Lighten up!