Posted on 01/22/2011 8:13:05 AM PST by Kaslin
After Tucson, Ariz., shootings, Sarah Palin's unfavorable rating in the CNN poll rose from 49 percent before the midterm elections to 56 percent now. It was not the left-wing charges that Sarah Palin had somehow incited the Tucson shooter by her aggressive political rhetoric that did her damage. Polls show that voters discounted these statements and even Rep. Giffords' husband has made clear that there was no political motive involved. It was Palin's response to these attacks that got her in trouble. Her highly publicized accusation that the criticism was a "blood libel" turned voters off. As sincere admirers of hers, we hope she learns a lesson from this exchange.
The lesson is simply this: She should not become a battering ram hammering at liberal critics -- getting down into the mud with them -- answering every attack, no matter how low, personal or undeserved it is. She is a potential presidential candidate for the Republican Party. As such, she needs to keep her own head unbloodied and intact. Battering rams don't find that easy to do.
The left plays Sarah like a fiddle. They pile on with totally outrageous attacks aiming at her personal life, her children and her family, and -- now -- linking her to murder. These disgraceful attacks do not score points with the voters. In fact, they tend to trigger a sympathetic feeling toward Sarah when they are leveled. But, for some reason, Palin feels compelled to answer them, to reply, to tell her side of the story (aka the truth).
The result of the exchange is that both sides lose: Her attackers and Palin herself both suffer. But the attackers aren't running for anything. They just go on to the next attack. They are after ratings and circulation, not votes -- and the more sensational their accusations and the more vulnerable the target, the better. But Palin has an image to protect, and when she is hurt in these exchanges, it matters politically.
Palin's basic point was, as usual, sound. These killings were the act of an evil madman, not anything related to our political dialogue. But this sensible point got buried, and many voters looked at the "blood libel" statement as self-indulgent and thin-skinned. To them, Palin seemed to be the one using the murders to besmirch her enemies, even though she was only answering their charges. Critics charged that she looked more concerned about defending own personal reputation from the attacks than with the national tragedy that had just taken place.
The point is that Palin should not and cannot answer. She needs to rise above the attacks. If she is going to run for president, she needs to be presidential. She can't descend to the level of her critics. She needs to do what makes her look good, fighting for less government and conservative causes, not what makes her look bad -- fighting with her enemies.
If Palin took the high road -- as Obama did -- and decried the violence in our society and stuck to condemning the killings, she would not have been hurt by the liberal charges. But, by answering, she exposed herself and got hurt.
Next time, we hope she learns her lesson.
Why don’t we give a surprise to the main stream media? Please someone tell me, why we are not discussing Paul Ryan as a candidate for president? He is young, smart, good looking, articulate, mid western family values, high favorability and he is a recipe for success.
PS- most of that info I posted was first posted by other FReepers. I just made or enlarged some screen shots.
It’s difficult to even engage on this board about Sarah Palin, unless it is with unlimited admiration.
I probably will return to my usual practice of just lurking and watching the Palin worship.
No kidding. They all sound rather nuts to me. Their logic is twisted and a lot of the time doesn’t even make good sense.
It doesn’t matter if she hadn’t said anything. She would have been attacked regardless, and by reading your post you would be right in the middle of those attacking her because she kept quiet. So don’t come to me saying she should have been quiet
Thank you for posting it. :)
That (alas!) was in the distant past, before the "Clinton War Room", and 24x7 Twitter whispering campaigns. Look what dignified silence did for Bush '43 and his political fortunes wrt "Bush lied, people died."
In answer to your question: of course you are not disqualified from your opinion; but do your best on this issue, as you do on almost everything else I've seen you opine upon, to make sure it is a fully-informed opinion. First hand sources beat the rumor mill :-)
Cheers!
I really wished FOX News would drop him. I can’t stand him. He acts like he knows everything, but is polls always missed by a mile. I refuse to go to his website when he asks people to
Because this thread is about Palin?
I know you did
“Next time, we hope she learns her lesson”
To problem is, how to reach the people who buy into crap like this and turn them around. They don’t watch FoxNews. She may have to go through their gatekeepers of information who didn’t play her full 8 minute statement. They only played the one sentence about blood libel. None of those gatekeepers is on her side, but some are capable of a degree of fairness. This is about more than Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. It’s about the demonization of opponents and the politics of personal destruction. Blame is assigned without evidence. It’s not a new thing in America, remember the Salem witch trials. At least they had trials. Now they convict them in their own minds.
What happened after the Tucson shooting needs to be discussed and rejected by society. If we don’t have the courage to talk about it, we will be victimized again.
Gov. Palin will turn this around by making Obama the boogeyman. He will be accused of bankrupting this country, exchanging our personal freedoms for collectivism, for reducing our national security and energy independence. The difference will be that Gov. Palin didn’t do what she was accused of, and Obama did.
Plenty. How many Muslim shoot-em-up sessions got swept out of the news cycle toot sweet?
I appreciate that. I would just offer that over immersion in the news cycles can skew perceptions of the reality that 99% of the American people actually inhabit.
Let me end up with a rhetorical question: please step away from the computer and mull it over, over a good beer or while shoveling snow, or something "ordinary".
When is the last time that major organs of the press, and public officials "on camera" (Sheriff Dipstick) have OPENLY and EXPRESSLY blamed a private citizen in connection with a mass murder?
Cheers!
Well. I guess I have my marching orders /s
Is it OK if I just take a nap?
We’ll get a good chance to see him in action after the State of the Union address...is this an election to fight young President with young candidate? maybe...magritte
Ask Mrs.don-o. :-)
This is war. Footsie time is over.
“It’s not a new thing in America, remember the Salem witch trials. At least they had trials.”
Sorry but this sentence reminds me of the scene out of Monty Python where they were going to put the “accused” witch in the water - if she drowned (and died) she was innocent, but if she floated she was guilty and was burned at the stake - sounds about right these days with Sarah, aye??
You make good points - I have no doubt that with time, Sarah can reach those who aren’t rabid, closed minded liberals. It’s going to be a brutal battle, but she’s ready.
These very “b*ll -less” useful idiots who say she should not defend herself are the ones being played like a fiddle.
When the enemy used every drop of ink and space on the web they could cull together to attempt to associate her name with that looney lib murderer, did they defend her or even make an attempt to point out the enemies’ false associations?
Then they show up after the fight is winding down and every cheap shot and below the belt hit has been thrown at Palin and trot out some ancient Marquis of Queensbury rule about being above the fray even though they know the fray is attempting pummel her to death.
She should have let others defend her? She was quiet for so long her attackers changed their attack to why is she silent. There was plenty of time for Dick toesucker and any of the other useful idiots who think its better to attack conservatives than to stand up to their liberal overlords to come to her defense. But they chose silence.
At one point I was willing to give Dick Morris the benefit of the doubt because he seemed to be trying to help conservatives. But after this, I can see he is no better than the rest of the beltway suck ups like Tokyo Rove who earn their living kissing elitist backsides. They don’t care about “we the people” except when they need the candidate they are shilling for elected. They get paid by the self-exalted class, the so-called beautiful people of the beltway, not the hoi palloi. So their real interest has never been in seeing conservatives win.
As far as I’m concerned, not one of them has anything to say worth hearing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.