It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NYT puts out 4 hit pieces against Palin in one day!

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
The media is in a panic to save their man Obama and its becoming more and more obvious that the MSM is completely corrupt.

1. www.nytimes.com...

I’ve been in Alaska only a week, but I’m already feeling ever so much smarter about Russia. [...]

An Arctic blast of action has swept into the 2008 race, making thinking passé



Two weeks after being thrown onto a national ticket, and moments after being speed-briefed by McCain foreign-policy advisers, our new Napoleon in bunny boots (not the Pamela Anderson kind, but the knock-offs of the U.S. Army Extreme Cold Weather Vapor Barrier Boots) is ready to face down the Russkies and start a land war over Georgia, and, holy cow, what business is it of ours if Israel attacks Iran? [...]



Like W., Sarah has the power of positive unthinking. But now we may want to think about where ignorance and pride and no self-doubt has gotten us. Being quick on the trigger might be good in moose hunting, but in dealing with Putin, a little knowledge might come in handy.


2. www.nytimes.com...

A week ago the question was: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? The question today: What kind of president would Sarah Palin be?

It’s an urgent matter, because if we’ve learned anything from the G.O.P. convention and its aftermath, it’s that the 2008 edition of John McCain is too weak to serve as America’s chief executive. This unmentionable truth, more than race, is now the real elephant in the room of this election.

No longer able to remember his principles any better than he can distinguish between Sunnis and Shia, McCain stands revealed as a guy who can be easily rolled by anyone who sells him a plan for “victory,” whether in Iraq or in Michigan. A McCain victory on Election Day will usher in a Palin presidency, with McCain serving as a transitional front man, an even weaker Bush to her Cheney.

The ambitious Palin and the ruthless forces she represents know it, too. You can almost see them smacking their lips in anticipation, whether they’re wearing lipstick or not.



Well that was clearly nice and objective......


When are we going to see this kind of scathing commentary about Obama? Oh wait, these people work for Obama, never mind.

3. www.nytimes.com...

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials. [...]


Ohhhhh, watch out! She pursues vendettas!


Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business;


Oh, well that does it!



Well, they had 3 hit pieces dedicated to Plalin, lets go after her husband now!

4. www.nytimes.com...

It is not necessarily clear whether Mr. Palin is helping shape his wife’s agenda or simply advocating for it, nor whether he ever put pressure on lawmakers, but his role has not been the customary one of a governor’s spouse in Alaska.

That has made many people in government uncomfortable and often confused over how to react.

“My colleagues told me he was lobbying for the governor’s position on oil taxes,” State Representative Jay Ramras, a Republican who is chairman of the House judiciary committee, said of one instance last year when he saw Mr. Palin outside the legislative chamber before a key vote. “I think that when the spouse of an elected governor steps away from safe issues that are nonpartisan in nature, that it is bad for the legislative and executive branches, and Todd Palin would not be an exception to that.”




There you have it. More compelling evidence that our media has been taken over by Obama fascists who plan on doing whatever it takes to get their guy in to the white house. Its the first media coup of a US election.



[edit on 15-9-2008 by Dronetek]




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
So what...Your claiming its all made up? Or that it shouldn't be brought out?




3. www.nytimes.com...

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials. [...]

Ohhhhh, watch out! She pursues vendettas!


You make it sound like this is ok? Or are all those people (and public records) lying?

You do remember what happened the last time a sitting president had a vendetta coming into office?


The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business;


So covering thier tracks is ok with you too? This just shows how shady she really is.

If it's true it sounds like the same old BS...how is that change?





[edit on 15-9-2008 by ATruGod]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ATruGod
 



Come on man, all of these charges are second and third hand unnamed sources. We already knew these media outlets sent an army of people to Alaska, with the express purpose of smearing her. I have no problem with being critical of the woman, but these same media people have done their best to deflect criticisms of Obama. How can they protect one guy and attack the other as an "unbiased" news organization?

I guess you guys will rationalize anything as long as its a means to get what you want. Are you notat all interested in Obama's connections, ACORN and other shady things from his past?


[edit on 15-9-2008 by Dronetek]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   


More compelling evidence that our media has been taken over by Obama fascists ...


Obama is a Socialist. McCain is a fascist. Get that straight.

And it's kind of funny that any negative press of the republican party is some how connected to Obama.

maybe its some independent individuals who thinks that Palin is actually not a good choice.

DID YOU KNOW WHO PALIN WAS BEFORE SHE WAS ANNOUNCED AS VP?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Anyways, who cares if there is stuff made up about Palin. Didn't the republican party attack Obama for everything he had and blew stuff up out of proportion...

Both sides suck. When will you understand.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by '___'eed
 


Yeah, so "independent" that they repeat the Obama talking points and run defense for him at every turn. SOOOOO independent, that they have no interest what so ever in being critical of Obama. Yeah ok buddy....



Originally posted by '___'eed
Anyways, who cares if there is stuff made up about Palin. Didn't the republican party attack Obama for everything he had and blew stuff up out of proportion...

Both sides suck. When will you understand.


The big difference being thats how the media treated accusations against Obama. They downplayed them and if they did spend time on it, spent it debunking criticisms. Thats the opposite of what their doing now. Instead of debunking, they are actually creating the scandals and rumors.



[edit on 15-9-2008 by Dronetek]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


Yeah, I have to agree. There is some obvious bias.

I think they should have some balls and throw out both candidates and have candidates come in with real solutions to America's problems.

They are both puppets, but we have to select one.

Obama just seems like the president that can do some critical thinking before he makes a decision. We all know what happens now when Leaders of america don't do critical thinking.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Another cry of "Unfair Media"! ? What's your point?

The first 2 are opinion pieces... Like it or not, there are people who are not swept up in a frenzy about Sarah Palin. The second 2 pieces explain some of the reasons why.

What does this complaint have to do with political ideology?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


I agree.

These are specious hit jobs masquerading as sound journalism. Rather than focusing readers' attention on very real Palin considerations, the flimsiest of disparaging evidence is paraded as shocking revelations of fact......and most of you are drunk with the lot of it.

What I find depressing is that for many I came to expect where honest brokers, rightly railing at the nonsense of the last decade, I am now discovering are only laying in wait to impose their own distorted view of the world.

Look how quickly they've adopted the same questionable means to pursue their version of a noble end.

I say BS.

The rot runs a lot deeper than just this administration and those around it.

Look in the mirror, people.


[edit on 15-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


Come on man....any charges against her at this point would bring the same response from the same people.

Don't get me wrong I hate both groups and would like nothing better than to see....... anyways my point is In your eyes she can't be touched.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Unbelievable, Obama has been dragged through the press on almost everything. How long was his pastor on tv for? how long did they talk about his wife finally loving America. Did you want Sarah to just get a free pass without the Citizens of the USA know who they are voting for?

I find the article amazing. It is biased but its sole purpose I believe was to dish out the dirt about Palin. So far people think she's a GOD sent but for the first time its coming out. Let truth rain my friend and when truth rains then the people can make an honest decision.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by walkinghomer
 



Originally posted by walkinghomer
Unbelievable, Obama has been dragged through the press on almost everything.


In other words, *they* did it to him, so it's OK to do it to her.

You demonstrate my point nicely.

Wouldn't the most compelling argument in favor of Obama's message of change be a repudiation of nonsense like these articles? I think you Obama supporters miss the damage this does to support he might otherwise find in the middle.

Not taking the high road and not focusing on the real differences on the issues does NOTHING but promise more of the same.


Congratulations, America.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Well, Palin couldn't explain what the "Bush doctrine" is, when asked during an interview. That she was roasted for that, in NYT, is nobody's fault but hers.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by walkinghomer
Unbelievable, Obama has been dragged through the press on almost everything. How long was his pastor on tv for? how long did they talk about his wife finally loving America. Did you want Sarah to just get a free pass without the Citizens of the USA know who they are voting for?

I find the article amazing. It is biased but its sole purpose I believe was to dish out the dirt about Palin. So far people think she's a GOD sent but for the first time its coming out. Let truth rain my friend and when truth rains then the people can make an honest decision.



Again, how was the media coverage of those incidents? Did they not downplay the Pastor's radicalism? Did they not spend their time convincing us that his lack of experience is actually a plus? Did you miss the MSM's relentless cries of foul for going after Obama's church? I remember all kinds of stories about the people at the church having to deal with "angry right wingers".

That is what you seem to be missing here. The media is doing the exact opposite of that now. Instead, they are doing everything they can to play up anything negative about Palin or McCain. Its as if the media has become an extension of the Obama campaign. Maybe you cant see it, because its what you want to see.

Look at this list of questions ABC's Gibson gave to Obama and Palin. Than tell me with a straight face that it makes any sense at all. You would think their roles (president and VP) were reversed.

Obama interview:


How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?


Palin interview:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   

That is what you seem to be missing here. The media is doing the exact opposite of that now. Instead, they are doing everything they can to play up anything negative about Palin or McCain. Its as if the media has become an extension of the Obama campaign. Maybe you cant see it, because its what you want to see.


It's not that we're missing it, it's that we don't see ghosts...

They did everything to play up all the BS they "fabricated" about Obama.
In fact they spend weeks on NON issues about Obama.

If you seriously believe that the MSM is an "extention" of the Obama campeign, then it's just wishfull thinking. FYI one newspaper (whichever it's political preference) is not the entire MSM.

It's almost childish...."OMG mommy look they are beign as critical of Palin as they've been with Obama the last few months...that's unfair !"



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by walkinghomer
 



Originally posted by walkinghomer
Unbelievable, Obama has been dragged through the press on almost everything.


In other words, *they* did it to him, so it's OK to do it to her.

You demonstrate my point nicely.

Wouldn't the most compelling argument in favor of Obama's message of change be a repudiation of nonsense like these articles? I think you Obama supporters miss the damage this does to support he might otherwise find in the middle.

Not taking the high road and not focusing on the real differences on the issues does NOTHING but promise more of the same.


Congratulations, America.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by loam]


My Point was..I didn't see you guys come out in defense of him so don't cry fowl when its your candidate.

Of course it should not be done. These kinds of smear should not be allowed and McCain vowed to do away with it, only to go against his very word.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 



t's not that we're missing it, it's that we don't see ghosts...

They did everything to play up all the BS they "fabricated" about Obama.
In fact they spend weeks on NON issues about Obama.


Well, the interviews are right there in black and white. They aren't ghosts. You can see quite a distinction in the line of questioning. One meant to uplift the candidate, the other to tear her down.

They "played up" the BS huh? Do I need to start posting links to clips of the MSMs unabashed defense of Obama over the last year? I mean, when high level "journalists" like Chris Mathews are getting "thrills" up their leg about Obama, its hard to beleive they are trying to be critical of him.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Personally, i think that McCain wanted this woman as his running mate to deflect the heat off of himself.
All the talk is about Sarah. Sarah, like all the others is not a saint, and has a past. Nobody really knows her, and what they do find out will be put in print or on the Liberal Media.
Last i heard her husband is a fisherman...which is an honest living, but i dont see how he can get into politics effectively, simply by injection??? (sort of).

Fox and other talking heads at the same time have canonized her into sainthood- so if you want balance, there it is.

Devil or angel?????



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 


Except Obama still hasn't been vetted in any serious way. When are we going to get this kind of critical look at him? He is the presidential candidate after all.

Also, Fox News is one channel. How you see a single network as equal to a dozen liberal networks is beyond me. You'll have to explain how that math works.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Charles Gibsons "interview" of Sarah Palin was obviously orchestrated to set her up in what looked like a hatchet job. It was also obvious his intent was to cast her as "ignorant" and why such a ambiguous question like what she thought of the "Bush Doctrine" was aksed.

What the hell is the "Bush Doctrine" ? I thought Bush had many doctrines but none so established that it would be a household word. This form of inteviewing cast Gibson as manipulative and now I no longer trust the media to give me the straight dope on Sara Palin and I will switch my Vote to Republican just to SPITE the media. The Media has been so big a problem in the United States that who ever they are against, Is who I will be for. How's THAT for sticking it to them for being so in love with Obama.

You might think that is stupid but let me give you some REAL suggestions about stupid when choosing a Candidate for the position of President of the United States. Consider this You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.


You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.


You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.


You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after 143 days of experience.


You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.


BUT....

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate.

That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.

After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. 143 days?

We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start.

AND, strangely and inexplicably, a large sector of the American public seems to feel comfortable with this and are campaigning for him.

We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are OK with this for the President of the United States of America?



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join