About Me

Name: conservativedude
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

The Language of Politics: When Words Are Weapons, Part III

Posted by conservativedude on Monday, November 03, 2008 4:00:21 AM
This is the third and last post about words and language as political weapons (for now).
 
3.  Turning Positives to Negatives  or "The Glass-half-empty paradigm"
 
I want to touch on a recurring theme I've noticed, and that's how "positives" from one candidate have been turned around to appear as a "negative" or derogatory statement by the other candidate because it's not perceived as inclusive.

To touch on the examples from Part II, the codewords that the liberals take issue with like, "hockey mom" or "Joe six-pack" are victims of their campaign to turn positive, inclusive utterances into exclusionary, racist remarks.  Normal people don't make everything about race or gender oppression, so liberal politicians and commentators squeeze all the precious juice out of a conservative viewpoint so all that's left is the bitter rind---the calling card of a liberal. 

Because Governor Palin never implied any racism in her "hockey mom" comment, liberals quickly tossed her true intent aside and cried racism, thus turning a positive into a negative.  Celebrating a group, type, or activity is only valid when a minority is actively involved.  Unless a black person, for example, inititates the joyful moment, that moment is considered invalid because it unavoidably carries with it HATE and exclusionary discrimination.
 
As I described in Part II, I understood "hockey mom" to be any mother (or parent) who is actively involved in their children's lives, but apparently I'm being racist.  Liberals and the black community chose to segregate themselves from this inclusive comment that they deemed divisive.  I wonder what Rosa Parks would say about black people (or their liberal spokespeople) actively separating blacks from the rest of society---forcing them to the back of the bus?  Americans have to wake up and understand how inoffensive ideas are being subverted for the liberal agenda of perpetuating unrest and the social divide.
 
The same goes for "Joe Six-pack", an American who happens to like sports or beer and takes the weekends off.  Groupings like these are left open-ended so many people can easily associate with them.  Race is not a factor.  "Joe sixpack" does not mean "no black people".  It's ludicious, but the left continues to assault conservative viewpoints by making innocuous, uplifting personality types that we can all rally around and recognize seem like a coded brand of hate.
 
With this line of political discourse, it's clear if they are ever to be happy (if that's possible), every statement uttered must be as generic and inclusive as possible. (translation: politically correct!)  Replace "hockey moms" with people,  "Joe six-packs" with people, "community organizer" with secular saint, and "Joe the plumber" with fraud.  That should do it!
 
If you still have doubts as to their extreme agenda, many in the media took Palin's wearing of a white outfit at a rally as proof of her racism!  It's no longer safe to say innocent, positive comments, just as it's taboo to wear white.  I'd say they want us walking on egg shells, but I might get in trouble because most eggs are white.  Would it be worse though if they were brown?
 
*                                       *                                       *
 
It's not just Obama and his surrogates who enjoy twisting positives into negatives.  Near the end of the VP debate, Palin answered a question describing her experience.  First she talked about her political career and executive experience, then made a more personal appeal by adding:

But it wasn't just that experience tapped into, it was my connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills? About times and Todd and our marriage in our past where we didn't have health insurance and we know what other Americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care? We've been there also so that connection was important.
 
The full transcript of the debate is here.
 
In response, Senator Biden started off on a good track, but eventually turned her positive (personal resume) against her, as if she was attacking him in her remarks, and not just making her case.  I guess the liberal opponents just think everything is about them.
 
He started by mentioning his decades in Washington, then ventured into personal resume territory too.  He talked about when some of his family tragically died in a crash and he worried if the others would pull through, and then the similar "kitchen table" worries that Governor Palin had articulated.  He continued:

I understand what it's like. I'm much better off than almost all Americans now. I get a good salary with the United States Senate. I live in a beautiful house that's my total investment that I have. So I -- I am much better off now.

But the notion that somehow, because I'm a man, I don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone, I don't know what it's like to have a child you're not sure is going to -- is going to make it -- I understand.

Now, I'm not going to question his emotions, especially when he got choked up at the end of this excerpt, but I feel that's the reason no one has called him out on his preceeding, angry retort about fatherhood and an imaginary (sexist?) attack by Palin.
 
At first it seemed like Biden was following the same playbook as Palin, when he outlined his personal experiences that make him a family man and someone everyone watching could relate to.  In effect, matching a "positive" from Palin, with his own "positive" comment.  But right before his most emotional moment of the debate, he forcefully responded to an imaginary threat against his fatherhood or manhood.
 
That's the central idea when it comes to turning postives into negatives--thinking everything the opponent says reflects negatively on you, even if they are just talking about themselves, especially in a positive light. 
 
Next time Barack Obama gets defensive after McCain describes his own love of America, take note of how Obama so craftily turns positive statements into attacks about him.  It makes you wonder when he hears positive comments from his opponents as they describe themselves, if he feels threatened by the weakness of his own positions and hollow convictions.
 
 
*                                       *                                       *
 
Perhaps all these attacks from the left are an attempt to distract us from all the back-peddling and denials wafting from Obama like stink lines from a cartoon outhouse. 

One language-based example is how Obama's sacrosanct "Fight the Smears" website made an interesting update regarding his involvement with ACORN, the community organizing group that is under FBI Investigations in a dozen states for voter registration fraud, and is partly responsible for the financial crisis we are now in by bullying banks to issue sub-prime loans. 

As archived by a blogger along with a photograph of Obama working with ACORN in 2004, a "fact" on his website used to be:
Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.

However, as the ACORN controversy grew, Team Obama changed the "facts" so they now say:
Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
 
If "never worked" for ACORN was not completely accurate and warranted 'change' (pun intended), that certainly implies that he did work for ACORN.  By saying that he was just "never hired" by ACORN doesn't mean he never worked for them (without pay).  It's a subtle but vital distinction.
 
 
The election is just two days away, and if Obama is elected it'll be thanks to his supporters (the mainstream media), and his surrogates who twisted words to make him sound like 'The One', while portraying McCain as the anti-Christ or President Bush (which is of course redundant if you actually listen to the mainstream media and kool-aid drinking hippies).  If Obama and Biden win, it'll be because of their many "rhetorical flourishes" and ability to sound eloquant while not really saying anything at all---other than 'spread the wealth'.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin is the real deal, Dems. Deal with it.

Posted by conservativedude on Monday, October 06, 2008 2:59:59 AM
Liberals can't take the heat, so they want to send Sarah Palin back into the kitchen.  All they see is that she is a mother (as if that were all of a sudden a negative!), not that she is also a governor who has rooted out corruption in both parties, brokered the largest trade deal in North American history, took on the oil companies and did it all while putting tax dollars back in Alaskans' pockets.
 
Despite her credentials they try to tell us she's dumb.  They use the "gotcha" questions from Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric to justify the mudslinging.  Not only is she not ready to be Vice President, but apparently the people of Alaska, backwards as they are, elected a "hockey mom" and hick to be Governor just for kicks.  This implication alone makes you want to hit your head against the wall.  How can they actually believe she's dumb? 
 
Of course, "comedians" like Bill Maher that called her a stewardess just add fuel to the fire.  Late night comedians are gods in this increasingly secularized country.  People should be required by law to read the paper or watch one hour of news a day to be allowed to watch late night comedians and sketch shows.  They need to get all of the facts because the mainstream media and entertainers ignore all the details they don't like.  While ridding the country of religion, secular-progressives discovered that "God is in the details", so the facts had to go too.
 
They hate the personal facts about Palin, so they downplay them or completely disregard the truth.  She's not a feminist according to the far left crowd and their koolaid drinking audiences because she wants a quote, "culture of life" in America.  She even tempered some counter arguments by saying she'd never want to impose jail sentences on women who abort and outlined vamped up counseling efforts and adoptions.  Still, she's considered a threat and turncoat because she does not subscribe to their beliefs.  How utterly tolerant of those liberals!
 
How can she have a life-long gay friend; she is opposed to gay marriage and is just another bigotted Republican!  She has no opinions of her own, she's just a conservative mouthpiece.  Coincidentally, Obama and Biden are also opposed to redefining marriage.  And despite the urban legends, Palin supports extending legal rights to gay couples too.  This blows perceptions of conservatives out of the water.  So much so, that Amy Poehler had a weekend update joke on SNL about how Palin has said she'd had a gay friend for 30 years (who "isn't her gay friend", but is one of her, "best friends").  Still, the joke was that her friend does not exist--because her existence threatens the liberal foothold on minority voters. 
 
Liberals tout minority voters because they always appear to be on their side.  The VP debate (which was the most-watched VP debate ever) showed Americans that on those social issues, Republicans are just as concerned about minorities and also just as concerned about justice.  So if both sides are against redefining marriage, why is it still an issue and why are Republicans still the bad guys?
 
It's too bad there are double standards in this secular progressive, MSM fueled climate.  I have a feeling if she could have pre-emptively brought up issues and warned the voters, she'd be just as untouchable as B. Hussein Obama.  I think it would have sounded something like this:
 
"We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run.  Since they don't have real answers for the challenges we face, they’re going to try to make you afraid--of me. Oh, she's too patriotic; she's got a different kind of accent; she definetely doesn't look like those presidents on the dollar bills [cheers from the crowd]...and did I mention she's an army mom?"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"No Virginia, there actually are Newspapers in Alaska."

Posted by conservativedude on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 5:15:19 AM
Life imitates art that imitates life.  The cycle is complete! It's official: liberal elites in the media have no clue what goes on in small town America, as evidenced this time by Katie Couric.

As I previously discussed, SNL has had a clear liberal slant without even an attempt at being balanced, but they (unintentionally?) hit the nail on the head with a recent New York Times sketch.
 
To recap, that sketch featured the New York Times staff at a meeting to discuss traveling to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin.  Many of the staffers were freaking out at the thought of not being able to get things like Thai food or Starbucks.  Another joke was when the presenter asked the reporters what the photo (of a snowmachine) was, and as I recall someone asked if it was a crucifix.  It might seem outlandish, but it illustrated a belief that the MSM or the liberal media elites are out of touch with small town America--in Alaska or the heartland of the "lower 48" alike.
 
In one of Katie Couric's recent interviews with Governor Palin, Couric pressed her on what types of newspapers or magazines she reads (or is able to get!) in Alaska.  Palin said, "I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media."  Our dear, dependable Katie kept pushing though.  Why? 

It's apparent when she does push and push that she has a clear agenda--meaning not just journalistic curiosity--but partisan intent.  Quite a mantra for a journalist.
 
The reason she pressed Palin on this was to make her--as well as her family and constituents--seem like Cletus the slack-jawed yokel and Brandine (the mother of his forty-three children).  Simpletons gnawing on moose jerky, chugging Budweiser and shooting the ceiling with sawed-off shot guns every time John Kerry comes on Fox News---their only source of news besides church bulletins.
 
Note:  Fox News is the most fair and balanced news source.  If you don't believe me, ask Hillary Clinton.
 
The whole awesome transcript was posted here, by the way.  I'm really elated by the response Palin gave Couric to cease that line of yammering.
 
      Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a 
              foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in 
              touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live 
              up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
 
Although that was a wonderful response, and tactful, I might have continued, "We get all sorts of news outlets in Alaska, even ones with low ratings.  We even get you, Katie."
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Live from New York, it's....liberal bias!

Posted by conservativedude on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:51:54 AM
How much is too much?  Where's the line when it comes to parody and satire? 

For me personally, I try and comprehend what kernel of truth was used to create the joke, and the intent (to poke fun at, or to hurt).  Would a fair-minded person or group of people laugh at the joke about themselves, or be insulted?  It comes down to what they're trying to say, and where it's coming from.  And in this partisan age we live in, it also depends upon how equal opportunity the comics are when they take shots.
 
First off, "comedy routines" by the likes of Sanda Bernhard that are peppered with f-bombs, or Bill Maher that call Sarah palin a "stewardess", among other things, clearly are hateful and cross that invisible line.  Name calling or endless profanity are the results of a weak-minded "comic" that obviously feels threatened by those they target.
 
As for the more thought-provoking political satire, it can get tricky.  The season premiere of Saturday Night Live opened with a message from Sarah Palin (portrayed by Tina Fey) and Hillary Clinton (Amy Poehler), which became more ironic since Hillary dodged a potential meeting with Palin the following week in real life.  The sketch showcased the impersonation talents of both actresses and featured some very top notch writing.  It will surely end up on a best-of DVD.  However, while most of the sketch was harmless fun, diffusing some of the tension the MSM created through their swift and relentless attacks against Palin and her family, elements of the sketch furthered certain far-left notions.  The far-left feminists have all but announced, "We want to empower women---but only liberal women that agree with us," and that was mirrored in the sketch.
 
Palin was portrayed as an earthy frontierswoman with little experience, let alone common sense---starkly contrasting her with the portrayal of Clinton: the driven, qualified, "happens to be a woman" senator that wants to be president.  Although the joke about being able to see Russia from (Palin's) house was funny along with other zingers, we understand the context and that it's blown out of proportion for comedic effect.
 
Unfortunately, too many American's only get their news from these shows, so how will they perceive the truth if they only see the world as it's reflected in the carnival funhouse of (slanted) comedy shows?
 
Statistically, most late-night jokes are directed at conservatives, and in the case of the primaries: conservatives and Hillary Clinton.  You'd get an age-discriminating McCain joke, a sexist Hillary (or Sarah) joke but do you think they'd ever dare cross the race line to make Obama an equal-opportunity target?  No, because that's racist...the only -ism we're sensitive about.
  
Following an opening that mocked McCain and made his tv ads seem nonsensical and out of line, a sketch this week poked fun at the the obvious bias of the mainstream media and particularly, the New York Times.  The main controversy was how they attacked her family again through "jokes" about incest.  On one hand that's a horrible thing to say, even in a comedy show.  Conversely, when I first saw it, I took the sketch not so much as a parody of the MSM, but a jawdroppingly on-the-nose portrayal of out-of-touch reporters touting liberal bias.  Don't deny it, even liberally-slanted "The Simpsons" takes shots at the Times.  I understand the outrage at the incest "jokes", but as offensive as that was, it provided what I believe to be about as honest a representation of the worst journalists of our day that I've ever seen.
 
Did they bug the Times offices for material, or actually write from their hearts (and diaries)?  It's worth noting that SNL is on NBC, so Brian Williams' softball questions about Obama's magazine covers apparently translate to latenight as, 'let's mock his opponents while keeping Obama and Biden jokes safely stowed in Al Gore's lock box'.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

United, We Wish!

Posted by conservativedude on Saturday, September 20, 2008 4:29:13 AM
The terrorists are jumping so high with joy, they're banging their heads on their cave ceilings.
 
Whatever happened to the days when we could disagree on a lot of issues but still unite as a country because of our common history, the sacrifices of all those who gave their lives for American freedom, and our unabashed bi-partisan love of apple pie, mom and the fourth of July?  I fear we won't have any fireworks next Independence Day.  The terrorists and their supporters will gladly supply us with a light show though--and that's the problem!
 
There's a radical, hateful ideology growing and rising and gaining a foothold within our free democracies--in effect using our good will and blind tolerance against us.  Just this week they gained actual legal power in our dear Mother country of yesteryear.  I'm sure Churchill is just lovin' this.  It makes you wonder how heaven could really be so peaceful when you're omnisciently aware of all the crappy goings on in our mortal stomping ground.
 
We should just dissolve the U.N., not just for their corruption--but also because if their major financial enabler (the "U" S of A) can't even put aside political differences for a necessary cause, what chance do we have of uniting the world for the common good of all?
 
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in New York City next week and protests were planned by the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now and various Jewish groups.  Now, there are dozens of protests a day.  Strikers.  PETA peeps.  Marriage supporters.  Gay marriage supporters.  Crazy Fred Phelps haters.  Those who hate Fred Phelps haters.  Anti-war protesters.  Pro-life supporters.  Fans of cancelled television shows......  The point is, there are more protests a day in America, than brain cells left in a 70 year old hippy pothead's brain.  However, something practically none of these rallies have are participating politicians.  (I know, I know.  That will change if when Cindy Sheehan is elected to Congress in November.)
 
After VP nominee Sarah Palin was invited and announced she planned to attend, Senator Hillary Clinton swiftly reneged on her commitment to attend.  It's obvious that the Obama camp--perhaps Obama him/herself--wanted to avoid a meeting between two of the highest regarded American female politicians ever.  Sarah Palin is new on the scene and such a show of solidarity would have upped her credibility and earned her more of the 18 million Hillary supporter's votes.  Then, Palin was disinvited by the organizers and now no politicians will attend.  You'd think she was a racist reverend of Obama's or something... 
 
The Democratic party is clearly choosing an election strategy over showing bi-partisan solidarity for a vitally important cause.  Democrats can barely make it through one, so asking for two days of solidarity in September must be a bit much.  Contrary to Senator McCain's famous quote, the Democrats would rather lose the war on terror, than see The One lose an election.  This divisiveness permiates throughout the election and onto our television sets every night for all to see--including the terrorists, who are cheering us on as we do half the work for them.  Divided we fall. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hack Attack!

Posted by conservativedude on Friday, September 19, 2008 5:07:22 AM
Hacking:  When dung slinging and name calling just isn't enough.  The vitriolic, reactive hate spewing game is clearly just a gateway drug for the next big hateful 'high', breaking and entering someone's (cyber)space and stealing personal correspondences, names and phone numbers.  This new digital age isn't just changing the political ads or websites we see, it's putting candidates at risk.
 
"But the public has a right to know!"  "Freedom of the Press!"  "Free Speech!"  "I am a real journalist, not a waste of gray matter!"
 
There is no excuse for the invasion of privacy Palin and her family has been subjected to.  I'm referring to the recent email hacking, but I can understand how it might not have been specific enough.  To make matters worse, she's a Governor, and a Vice Presidential nominee.  Breaking into her email account isn't just a crime--it's a doozie--and should be treated that way.  The FBI in Alaska is working with the secret service to get some answers. 
 
Unfortunately, it seems not all the guilty parties will be dealt the justice they deserve.  The hackers who stole the information will face some charges and probably get jail time, but what about the despicable website that posted it in the name of Journalism?  Apparently the website in question is considered a journalistic enterprise (and I'm a spaceman from Omicron Persei 8).  Because of their classification, they can just screech, "the people had a right to know" or, "this is important (and by default so am I)." 
 
Meanwhile, the first family of Alaska--and especially the children--- have been endangered by having their personal contact information strewn about on the internet. 
 
If they had found the Alaskan "Deep Throat" hiding in a moose costume, perhaps they'd have some credibility and their publication of the stolen materials might be justified.  However, that is not the case.  Point to any journalistic relevance of publishing the screen grabs of the Governor's email account!  Just as a I thought---zippo!  Point to any journalistic integrity in the owners of this website!  You guessed it--and it rhymes with Gitmo!
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Free Associations Have a High Cost

Posted by conservativedude on Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:00:19 AM
  Whether it's stepping-stone personal associations to help him get going in Chicago politics, or word associations gone awry, Obama clearly has a difficult time getting from point A to B.  I want to describe the three points that sink Obama's PC battleship, but first I want to discuss his dubious personal associations.
 
  I've never had to befriend a rich Bruce Wayne type to get my name known around town to run for office, but I know what I stand for and what I won't stand for.  Unrepentant terrorist, William Ayers, seems like a man someone running for office would avoid---but Obama attended a political "coming out" party at Ayers' home.  Remember, this is the terrorist whose words, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough" ran in the New York Times, on September 11, 2001 of all days.  He and Obama also served on a board together and Obama expressed no concern over Ayers' violent, anti-American past.  In fact, in his landmark interview with man of the people Bill O'Reilly this past week, he reiterated to Bill that he (Obama) was only 8 years old when Ayers was a terrorist--as if there's a expiration date on the criminality of terrorism and treason--especially when the criminal is unrepentant.
 
  Then there's Obama's connections with Rezko, who helped him purchase his Chicago home.  What about Louis Farrakhan?  What about Priest Michael Pleger's sexist, racist and anti-american rantings in church?  Let's not forget the original anti-american religious leader in Obama's life: Reverend Jeremiah Wright, recently revealed to be cheating on his wife with another married woman.  Wright preached hate in his church and Obama sat in his pews about twice a month according to the O'Reilly interview, yet never heard these horrible remarks or the ones where he accused the government of infecting black people with AIDS.  Of course, Obama did uninvite Wright as a speaker at his initial speech where he declared his candidacy for president.  We're just supposed to give him a pass on all of these associations.  Obama started his political career on a dubious foundation and over the past decade has layed the bricks and associated with bricklayers most Americans would avoid at all costs.
 
  His remarks yesterday are the latest in this long line of negative associations, only this time, his word associations mid-speech when criticizing his opponents cross yet another line.  However, nothing ever seems to stick to him.  He said, ""You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig...You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change,' it's still gonna stink after eight years...."
 
  If he had only said the lipstick on a pig comment, he might've been able to pass it off as just an old saying that every politician says eventually.  And it would be true, liberals and the media have paraded soundbytes of Dick Cheney, John McCain and others saying the pig remark.  But there are three key elements that must be considered because every situation and usage of (any) phrase is unique.
 
1.  Context.  Okay, he's talking about his two opponents but specifically their policies, so this alone makes it easy for Obama to say he was focusing on their policies, not the candidates themselves.  However, one additional element of the context is of course Palin's remark at the convention that made "lipstick" a political buzzword.  Furthermore on this point, also on 9/9/08, introducing Biden, Rep. Russ Carnahan said of Palin's record, "There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick," so lipstick has clearly been a buzzword on everyone's lips for the past week and used in a derogatory manner--something Obama was aware of.
 
2.  Intent.  Obama puts his hand on his head just as he prepares to begin the pig statement showing doubt or trepidation at the joke he'd already mentally committed to.  He delivered it, and the crowd cheered---they got it---so he knew he hadn't made a mistake, or at least wasn't going to get gasps from his supporters at the clear dig at Palin---the woman credited with taking the momentum out of his campaign.   Here's where it gets fishy---  One comment along those lines could be excused if explained properly (it's an old saying or I was just talking about the policies), but going once more unto the breach for the "stinky old fish" comment takes away the argument it was just an off-the-cuff comment and wasn't directed at any personal traits of his opponents.  One more jab, with the words he chose, reveals the first comment to be an attack---not a criticism.
 
3.  Delivery.  The fact he paused and almost wanted to hide his face with his hand shows that ivy league education paid off and he realized that "lipstick" might not be the best word choice.  However, the crowd ate it up and basking in their cheers he went for a two-fer with the fish comment.
 
His supporters tout the fact he's such a great speaker, and a clever man--yet deny that he thought into these metaphors and comparisons.  McCain is always perceived as old, so was he the "old fish" wrongfully wrapped in change?  Or were both digs directed at Palin the "basketball barracuda" and hockey mom who uses "lipstick"?
 
In any event, it seems Obama will avoid the fallout of yet another negative 'association', leaving me to wonder:  How much will the people let him get away with before enough is enough?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mommy Nearest?

Posted by conservativedude on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 7:35:25 PM
Ever since Governor Palin was announced as John McCain's VP pick, the "progressive and tolerant" left and especially the extreme feminists have slammed Palin as trying to juggle too much and that her family should be her priority.
 
Well, she obviously loves her family very much, and is committed to them, just as she's committed to Alaska.  Apparently she's been using per diem for travel expenses between her home in Wasilla and Juneau--600 miles away.
 
It's funny how in one breath her opponents in the media and democratic leadership (I know, that's redundant) can criticize her for being a successful governor and reformer who (happens to be a mother) so "how can she give her family enough time?", yet also criticize her for traveling to see her family or vice versa.  Liberals:  Please, pick one line of criticism.  Understanding the physics of time travel would be less of a strain on my brain than following your contradictory criticisms.
 
Palin was sworn into office December 4, 2006.  When you calculate that her predecessor (Murkowski) was only in office 11 months that year,  that means that of his whopping $463,000 in 2006 travel expenses, he spent an average of $42,090 a month.  In 2007, Palin spent a comparatively scant $93,000 on transportation, which averages to $7,750 a month.  Overall, in year to year and governor to governor rates, Murkowski spent a staggering $370,000 more than Palin.
 
As a citizen, I understand that our leaders that we vote into office should not have to endure the personal hardship of being away from their families--regardless of how perceivedly "well-off" they are.  While I think Nancy Pelosi and her jetting back and forth from DC to CA might be extravagant, she still has the right to travel home.  You shouldn't have to endure personal hardships if you don't have to.  No one would want to run for office to represent us if that were the case.
 
Obviously soldiers fighting overseas endure far worse hardships, but when the time comes, we don't make them pay their air-fare home.  Why then should we scold a governor of a widely expansive state for wanting to be with her family?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »