Palin’s "Troopergate"
I read this post on the TalkLeft blog by “Big Tent Democrat” last Sunday. It’s regarding the issues surrounding Sarah Palin’s reassigning of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, allegedly because he wouldn’t fire Palen’s sister’s estranged husband. BTD takes fellow liberal blogger Josh Marshall to task for his coverage of the issue, specifically over the fact that Marshall seems to take all the accusations against Palin at face value (guilty until proven innocent) and Marshall’s contention that this kerfuffle may hurt Palin politically.
For starters, the Left seems to see this entirely in a political lens. BTD notes:
Let’s face it, Marshall’s interest, and everybody’s for that matter, is almost entirely based on the political implications of this story. And here is what Marshall is missing – the story is likely to have little political implications for Sarah Palin. And if there are any, they are likely to be positive.
Quite an honest admission from BTD, who reiterates this point at the end of the post. Not mentioned in this post or Marshall’s is that, while there has been an investigation opened into this, Palin hasn’t been subpoenaed — because she’s been so forthcoming! This is another example of what I’ve noted before; Palin seems to be the kind of politician everybody says they’d like and wish there were more of. And indeed this corruption-fighting, cooperative governor enjoys 80%+ approval from her constituents.
But Big Tent Democrat goes over the accusations and the facts of the case and find no “there” there, which to me is the larger point. So many on the left smell blood in the water, because it’s all political. In the meantime, there’s no credit given for the unusual openness shown by Palin simply because she’s of the wrong party.
Hey liberals. You’re watching the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and booing Jimmy Stewart (in a brilliant disguise).
UPDATE: John Hinderaker at PowerLine notes that the NY Times called itself “squeamish” about covering the John Edwards “love child” story, and had to (in their words) devote more time to the “big issues facing the country”. But today, they had 3(!) front page stories on Bristol Palin.
Times’ Public Editor Clark Hoyt said of the Edwards coverage, “I do not think liberal bias had anything to do with it.” I’m sure he said it with a straight face, too.
Filed under: Doug • Liberal • Politics • Republicans
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
The comparison in their first “Presidential” decisions could not be more stark. You do not want your VP choice all over the news for problems. Can anyone say Geraldine Ferraro?
Even if most of these allegations are eventually proven to be unfounded, the populace at large is getting the feeling that the McCain campaign was overly hasty and this decision was not thought out.
It will take a lot of money to counter that impression in the next two months.
ps, what is up with your blogads and polls, etc overlapping your text? Does the calendar throw it off?
For folks who vote based on impressions rather than the facts, you have a point. What makes matters worse are the lies that form those impressions as well (i.e. the Kos diarist that got the rumor spread far and wide that Sarah faked a pregnancy).
The more the truth gets out, I think the better she’ll look. Assuming the news media spends as much time clearing her name as they did reporting the allegations. CNN talked about it twice in 1/2 hour last night, and never actually hit on the facts, just the allegations.
Regarding the layout, what’s your browser? I don’t see overlap in Firefox 2, Firefox 3 or IE 7.
Browser is IE 6 (yuck, company IT insists)
Karl Rove (a person I shudder to quote) says that if you are explaining an issue you loose. He has used this to (from his perspective) good effect for some years. Now McCain is going to have explaining to do as Obama hits 50 (Gallup daily tracking) and 51 (Ramussen) percent in the polls.
There are 2 months left. I expect this race to get much nastier before it is over.
I am at home viewing your site on Firefox 3, and it is perfect so it is definitely IE 6 at work that is the problem!