Holding Ranks

I received a very thoughtful email from someone who came across my blog, and she raised three points that I'd like to address.

First, she felt that my "staunch" support for Sarah Palin perhaps should be re-examined since Palin nominated a pro-abortion judge to the Alaskan supreme court. Yep, I've been meaning to talk about that, so here goes.

Of course I was taken aback, but with all the previous mistreatment by the press, I knew I had to wait for the actual details. With the usual rush to judgment, she was attacked for being hypocritical, that perhaps she was doing this for political gain and had lost her integrity. Detractors had a field day and supposed supporters (could have been folks posing so that they could make waves) rescinded their loyalty.

Then the facts were revealed. Palin was only allowed to pick from two nominees chosen by a liberal committee. She was not fooled by a group that claimed to be pro-life that was supporting the other, more pro-abortion judge. She asked for all documents available and made her choice after examining their judicial records. Sounds to me like a very principled process in reaching her decision.

But most folks probably didn't hear the follow-up. The media has no interest in showing Palin in a good light, so most people were robbed of the opportunity to reach a fully informed conclusion on this story. And so it goes and goes and goes...

Second, she felt I am too biased against Obama -- for instance, she felt that it was wrong to blame him in any way for the chat room attack.( http://www.lovehateoprah.com/lovehateoprah/2008/10/sarah-and-i-are-waiting-for-obamas-disavowal.html )

While I admit I was very upset when I wrote that post  -- I am still upset enough by it today to stand by what I said. And in fact, I and other Team Sarah members were violated in that exact manner more than once, and were attacked with the most vile photo I have ever seen which was sprung on us in what seemed to be a friendly email from a fellow fan -- after the election.

While, yes, these guys and the jerks who wore the "c-word" t-shirts are a fringe of twisted juveniles, I believe that it is all part of a end-justifies-the-means approach that pervaded the Obama campaign and still continues today. While there were more stories than I could count about supposed shouts of "Kill him!" at McCain-Palin rallies (disavowed by the Secret Service, but I bet you missed that story too) I have yet to see a single story about any of this.

And you can't tell me that Obama had/has no idea it was/is going on. The one time he stepped up and told the media to back off Palin's family was the one time I respected his campaign. Was it because the media ignored him -- and made an all-out assault on any and everyone associated with Palin -- that he figured he had no way of stopping this reprehensible behavior? Perhaps.

But in general I feel that I'm a small force trying to fight an overwhelming tide -- you can understand if I feel that I have to call in to question everything I feel the man is doing wrong. (Or actually, only a fraction of them -- I only have so much time!)

Third, the email suggested I write something positive about Obama -- perhaps the good example his family presents. I fully recognize that the very fabric of the African-American culture could be changed dramatically for the good with the Obama family as a beacon to how things can be. I think one of the most important accomplishments in Obama's very short career has been his Father's Day speech. But I'm waiting for that particular change to happen before I write that story. I truly want to.

There are more than a couple things that Obama and I agree on (not just that D.C. drivers are wimps) and I'm waiting for some actual action in those areas. But so far it's only been talk, talk, and more talk (or, more accurately, good reading of speeches from teleprompters, teleprompters, and more teleprompters). I have yet to see him do anything that I can stand up and cheer. But hey, anybody can have a bad 50 days.

I want to help change hearts and minds, but I also want to expose the truths that the regular media chooses to ignore.  So I risk losing my audience when I point out Obama's failures. Apparently, that's being negative. Unfortunately too many people are turned off by anything that even has a whiff of negativity.

For example, Limbaugh says he wants Obama to fail -- meaning he wants his economic policies to fail, so that the policies he believes in may be given a chance -- and he's accused of spewing hate. Never mind that 51% of democrats polled in 2006 said they wanted Bush to fail. In the former case, we were talking about economic survival, in the latter we were talking about more soldiers dying in Iraq -- but who gets called the hate-spewer?

I realize that I am at cross purposes here. But I think it is important to stand strong, and not gravitate to a mushy middle. Not on the important issues anyway. And I ask that those who feel the same way about those issues to stand strong too, and don't let the negative atmosphere that the media creates turn you away from expressing your support.

As for those like the emailer who disagree on those issues, and think I will reach them if I back off a little, I hope that they too will not buy into the fabricated negative aura, and truly look at these issues from both sides and both points of view.

Stick with me, and maybe you won't fully change your mind, but you'll definitely get to hear some aspects you won't find just anywhere. And a more informed decision definitely has more integrity. I hope you'll continue to check me out.

Comments

[Karen]

Just wanted to say how much I enjoy your blog. You always keep me thinking. Keep up the good work.

[Jessica Johnson]

Thanks for responding to my email. I have to disagree with you on Sarah Palin - she is fully accountable for her decision; or, at the very least, equally accountable as the liberal committee you mention. While Sarah Palin may have been given a limited choice of two supreme court nominees who were given to her by this "liberal" committee (I don't COMPLETELY buy this given how the council is chosen), she had several options. First, she could have listened to her own conservative party suggestions and picked the other nominee (Smith). The Alaska Family Council, a pro-life, anti-abortion group also urged her to pick Smith, who was viewed as more conservative. She chose not to. Second, she could have refused both nominees and, thus, would have ultimately been given: a.) more names to choose from, or b.) the list of all candidates to chose from (this happened with the former governor when he refused to pick from the list the council provided). She didn't. Third, her own public comments further her support for this more liberal justice: "I have every confidence that Judge Christen has the experience, intellect, wisdom and character to be an outstanding Supreme Court justice." (Anchorage Daily News, along with a few other news sources ranging in bias). That doesn't sound like someone who was forced into anything, really. If Obama had picked Christen to this position, I'm guessing you would have skewered him. Should we not hold Palin to the same standard? You don't like "mushy middles", and we shouldn't let her off so easy by pointing the finger at her opposition. In Christen, she's potentially chosen politics over life.

Second, thank you again for mentioning something positive about Obama, although it was very guarded (a start, none the less, to something possibly more unbiased in your blog). However, the point I was trying to make about the strength of his family and love that comes through so clearly in his marriage is a shining, non-political example to ALL families, not just something that could potentially change "the fabric of the African-American culture", as you discussed. Or maybe I mis-read your point?

Finally, you've often mentioned that one of your purposes for this blog is to point out "truths" left untold by the liberal media and politicians. Like you, I would love to find unbiased reporting and politicians that didn't spin, to find sources and people that just lay it all out for us as it should be...the truth and nothing but. As I read your blog, though, I find that you spend so much time pointing out the "lies" told by everything liberal. At the same time, you give conservatives a break, as if they do little wrong and require little criticism (e.g. your treatment of Palin in her appointment). How unbiased is that?

[Colette Moran]

Hey Jessica

All this sounds eerily familiar to all the posts I read on liberal message boards...

As for Palin -- the pro-life group was wrong (not sure if it was a sham, as some have said) about Smith. He was more pro-abortion and Christen seems to be the better choice overall. Palin's predecessor tried asking for new nominees and was shot down. It's not allowed.

AS for Obama -- of course all good marriages stand as an example -- I just feel the most impact can be made in the black community which has been hit hardest by the breakdown of the family.

As for truths and lies and who I give a break to or not -- I've already addressed this specific case about Palin above -- and I plan to write a more thorough response about those topics soon -- but as I've said... my time is limited, so I have to pick and choose. I have and will call out conservatives -- I just haven't had anything lately that has made it to the top of the list!

Colette

[jessica johnson]

I recognize that my post sounded very liberal, but I didn't mean it that way, and I'm sorry if I came off harsher than I should have. While I voted for Obama, I actually have many reservations about his recovery plan and a few other things that I won't get into here for lack of time and space.

I'll maintain, though, that your blog is eerily conservative in slant, so much so that it loses the clarity you seem to want to achieve in its purpose. To say that there is nothing yet good to say about the new administration, and then to not have anything blog-worthy that would be critical of the GOP seems narrow-minded. I understand the time thing, though, but with what time you have it would be nice to see more balance. Again, I admire your writing and just the fact that your trying to generate intelligent conversation. But balanced? Not yet...

[Colette Moran]

Maybe what I'm saying is that -- with my time constraints -- I'm trying to balance the whole media picture if only a tiny amount. A little blog like mine is no match for the obvious liberal bias amongst the vast majority of tv and print outlets. But that's what I'm trying to do -- folks have already heard plenty of the other side from those sources -- I'm trying to show another side, another opinion they might not have heard. Gotta run!

[Mushy Middle]

So what you're saying to Jessica is that you will always have an opposing view contrary to "the liberal media's." Well, then, you are biased. Own it.

Look, the First Amendment was created for exactly this purpose -- that everyone has a right to information from various sources, and that everyone has a right to share and disseminate that information. What confuses me is this: Sarah Palin contended, more than once, that when her accusations of President Obama's "pallin' around with terrorists" were called into question, that questioning itself seemed a threat to her First Amendment rights. In fact, she was never threatened with criminal misconduct when she claimed these things, so her First Amendment rights were recognized; however, when she lashed out at the media, she then chose to ignore (or didn't know, more likely) that the First Amendment also provides freedom of the press and protects the press's right to criticize our politicians. So she was really just whining. What Palin should have done was recall how she herself said at a Newsweek forum that Hillary Clinton's whining about sexist coverage does nothing to promote the advancement of women in politics...and left it at that.

So keep on with your thoughts and ideas -- it's your right. But know that your blog is "eerily similar" to what lots of other bloggers are saying. There are plenty of voices out there that sound just like yours.

BTW, Team Sarah isn't as lily white as you portray. I was disgusted to read the racist comments about Obama on a visit to its chat room. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stay a "mushy" moderate.

[Colette Moran]

Ok, this is not an attack, just some food for thought.

I do not "always" have an opposing view to the liberal media. I have stated this several times. Even if I did, having an opposing view does not mean one has a bias. Having a bias means that you draw negative inferences about
individuals or ideas or actions based solely on their characteristics, not on who or what they actually are, say or do. (Yes, I'm oversimplifying -- the time thing...)

I admit to being skeptical, so that is why I reserve judgment and dig deeper from sources on both sides, and then I sometimes choose to give a voice on my blog to the argument that seems more reasonable. It just so happens that it often does not come from mainstream sources. (The views I agree with in the mainstream are already getting enough press, so I'm sticking up for the underdog. I always have.)

As for Palin -- who's biased here? What basis do you have for "or didn't know, more likely" -- the highly edited, highly unfair Couric interview? I think when Palin mentioned the First Amendment, she was simply throwing back what everyone says when they are questioned for saying something. (In other words, the media shouldn't apply different rules than what they expect for themselves.)

Which leads to the "whining" comment -- yep, Palin said that at the Newsweek forum. And then Palin herself was put under an even more intense spotlight than Hillary ever was. Plus on top of that, her husband and children were dragged in. Did Hillary ever have her wardrobe expenditures questioned, while not only the men's weren't but *none* of their expenditures were questioned? Was Hillary ever accused of using her sexiness -- or was Obama ever taken to task for using his charm?

Under the kind of *unprecedented* pressure that Palin experienced, I think she showed great restraint and poise and I'm not going to hold anything against her for making a few pointed comments after experiencing a situation that she could never have foreseen when she made that statement at the forum.

Next: My "eerily similar" comment was more so to point out that people keep perpetuating false arguments. The writer proposed an alternative course of action for Palin that was not available -- and had been reported days before that post was written -- by conservative outlets, that is. And yet, there it was again.

I don't purport that I come up with all that much that is totally new and innovative. I'm just hoping that my sparkling personality will draw some new faces to have a look at an alternative point of view. (ahem)

So it's best not to trust any single source, and it helps to get other opinions -- even if you end up disagreeing with them most of the time. Because then you can continue to defend your arguments without perpetuating falsehoods. And who knows -- maybe even once in a while, you'll change your mind.

And if you read more of my posts, you'll know that Team Sarah has been in a constant battle to rid itself of fake members who invade the chat room and post those terrible comments to do exactly what it did to you (not that you'd necessarily be joining anyway) -- to drive away good folks by besmirching the community.

Yeah -- real integrity in some of those Obama supporters... Can't just let there be actual debate -- they have to tear about an opponent, sully their reputation. I guess they know that they would lose a fair fight.

But that's my bias, eh?

So -- should you let yourself be manipulated by the likes of them (and yes, I know that they exist on both sides - that's part of my point) -- let them frighten you from taking a stand on the important issues? Should you shy away, hide in the safe middle zone? That's where they want you, so they won't have to deal with you.

If you don't take a stand -- whichever side you're against loses you as an adversary. They win just a little -- and look how they did it. By being nasty. I just can't let myself be used like that.

I'm not saying you have to take an extreme position on every issue -- believe me, there are many issues I don't feel very strongly about, and the middle is just fine for me. But it's not because I was turned off and chose to escape there. And if it came down to it -- I would choose a side if I had to.

If we can't stand up for what we believe in -- why bother showing up at all?