Rejecting Palin
After Sarah Palin's statement about the Tucson shooting and her role in the matter, I, for the most part, agree with her statements about debate and responsibility.
Jared Loughner chose to attack Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and kill six people for reasons we will never truly understand. So Sarah Palin could not be directly responsible for this.
I would think video game "Call Of Duty" or movie "Red" would have influenced a spree killer than a simple graphic which put bullseyes twenty Congresspeople for the 2010 election.
However, Palin's statement, which begins as a defense of free speech and open debate, quickly turns into a pathetic attempt at the "best defense is a good offense".
Palin's post-campaign rhetoric has been exactly that: she will respond any criticism with an infuriating attack, knowing that she is has no one to answer to for her irresponsible comments.
Her base of extreme right wing supporters love her unwaveringly, no politician on either side will touch her with a ten foot pole, so the only people who talk about her are the "lamestream" media.
And why does media, particularly the progressive commentators who do not even express contempt but mostly ridicule, focus so much on Sarah Palin?
"Sarah Palin gets an inordinate amount of media coverage because she outrages more people than she inspires."
It is a subtle distinction to understand the place Sarah Palin resides in today's political world. She is no longer an elected official, so she has no constituency to answer to. But she not a pundit either, since the possibility of running for the Presidency still looms. She is not an employee of any news organization.
She has created for herself an unique situation in our political world: unassailable. She has built herself a tower on the foundation of outrage. And the more outrageous her statements are, the taller the tower grows.
The only miscalculation she made was when the emotion of outrage would be rejected. It is funny idea that we value outrage, but in the heated political arena, outrage sells.
But after the tragedy of Tucson, the American public has no room for outrage. We might feel confusion, sadness, sympathy, or even a bittersweet inspiration from our unity behind the victims of Loughner.
I have listened to her speech, and she does not seem contrite or even sympathetic. She might have been convincing if she mentioned nothing about politics, but by bringing up the topic, she is forced to defend her outrageous opinions, and ultimately, herself.
But no one cares now. There is no way to turn feelings of sadness into outrage. You just shake your head and move on.
I suspect from this point, the interest in Palin is going to wain. I read that she will be on Hannity next week, and she will reiterate how she is perfectly justified to throw verbal firebombs and how it is someone else's fault the building is on fire.
I hope no will care what Palin has to say, and that will be the way to finally reject Palin.
"America's Enduring Strength"
Jared Loughner chose to attack Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and kill six people for reasons we will never truly understand. So Sarah Palin could not be directly responsible for this.
I would think video game "Call Of Duty" or movie "Red" would have influenced a spree killer than a simple graphic which put bullseyes twenty Congresspeople for the 2010 election.
However, Palin's statement, which begins as a defense of free speech and open debate, quickly turns into a pathetic attempt at the "best defense is a good offense".
Palin's post-campaign rhetoric has been exactly that: she will respond any criticism with an infuriating attack, knowing that she is has no one to answer to for her irresponsible comments.
Her base of extreme right wing supporters love her unwaveringly, no politician on either side will touch her with a ten foot pole, so the only people who talk about her are the "lamestream" media.
And why does media, particularly the progressive commentators who do not even express contempt but mostly ridicule, focus so much on Sarah Palin?
"Sarah Palin gets an inordinate amount of media coverage because she outrages more people than she inspires."
It is a subtle distinction to understand the place Sarah Palin resides in today's political world. She is no longer an elected official, so she has no constituency to answer to. But she not a pundit either, since the possibility of running for the Presidency still looms. She is not an employee of any news organization.
She has created for herself an unique situation in our political world: unassailable. She has built herself a tower on the foundation of outrage. And the more outrageous her statements are, the taller the tower grows.
The only miscalculation she made was when the emotion of outrage would be rejected. It is funny idea that we value outrage, but in the heated political arena, outrage sells.
But after the tragedy of Tucson, the American public has no room for outrage. We might feel confusion, sadness, sympathy, or even a bittersweet inspiration from our unity behind the victims of Loughner.
I have listened to her speech, and she does not seem contrite or even sympathetic. She might have been convincing if she mentioned nothing about politics, but by bringing up the topic, she is forced to defend her outrageous opinions, and ultimately, herself.
But no one cares now. There is no way to turn feelings of sadness into outrage. You just shake your head and move on.
I suspect from this point, the interest in Palin is going to wain. I read that she will be on Hannity next week, and she will reiterate how she is perfectly justified to throw verbal firebombs and how it is someone else's fault the building is on fire.
I hope no will care what Palin has to say, and that will be the way to finally reject Palin.
Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.
"America's Enduring Strength"
Comments
Post a Comment