Richard WarnickPalin On Democrats: “Do They Think The Terrorists … Are The Good Guys?”
Via TPM Election Central… In a speech today in Missouri, Governor Sarah Palin strongly implied that Democrats think the “terrorists” are the “good guys.”
I’ve been disciplined up to now, letting others bash Sarah Palin because I prefer to hammer away at Senator McCain, who made the mistake of picking her. When you run for President, you get to make one presidential-level decision prior to Election Day: the choice of a running mate and potential Vice President of the United States. It’s an understatement to say McCain blew that opportunity.
Here’s the quote. After saying that some Dems want to cut defense spending by 25 percent, she said:
“What do they think? Do they think that the terrorists have all of a sudden become the good guys, and changed their minds? No! The terrorists still seek to destroy America and her allies and all that it is that is that we stand for: Freedom, tolerance, equality.”
FY 2008 U.S. defense appropriations ($623 billion, not including Iraq or Afghanistan) exceeded that of the rest of the world combined by more than $100 billion. Whether that staggeringly large sum is actually being well spent in the cause of freedom, tolerance and equality is debatable, I think. Perhaps a less militaristic approach to foreign affairs would work better?
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wrote, in a now-famous October 2003 memo:
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
That question has never been answered.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall examines Governor Palin’s post-election political prospects, and concludes: “The woman is an ignoramus of almost unprecedented magnitude in the annals of national politics… my strong hunch is that if McCain loses tomorrow that will be the end of Sarah Palin’s national political career.”
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
The photo of “Sister Sarah” reminds me of similar photos where leaders of rouge states display their macho by brandishing weapons. The late Saddam Hussein comes to mind!
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
OTP,
Do you think that similarity is by accident or is it the media’s manipulating the perspective?
Over and over again, the main stream media has displayed an anti-firearm bias. Show rogue state leaders with firearms would send a message to many people that only “evil doers” need firearms.
Seldom are positive images of firearms portrayed in the media. Coverage of Olympic shooting sports was practically non-existent but every accidental shooting receives front page coverage.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Really Obama, I figure America invented the pose with Stallone’s Rambo movies.
Guns are part and parcel of the American experience, without them, we could never have defeated the British, nor subjugated the Indians, we would not be in charge of this place. They have the happy circumstance of making tyrants nervous when held in the hands of the like of Palin.
Guns are widely responsible for American success, like it or not.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Earth to Bob S, Come in PLEASE!
You are right. Its all about perspective. And you think guns have a bad image?
Only if you can’t get enough of them.
Until Toys R Us stops selling toy guns, and kids stop making them out of fingers and sticks, I would say guns have an EXCELLENT image in the mainstream media.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Alan, you say that like it’s something we should be proud of.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I just thought the picture of Palin awkwardly holding an M-4 carbine would be amusing. But it got us off onto another topic that’s interesting on its own.
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Cliff,
What era are you living in….the Mattel Marauder ad is part of today’s main stream media?
The main stream media does not provide a positive image of firearms, not even close. The coverage is so slanted in favor of the anti’s it is ridiculous. Every day there are ordinary people stopping crimes by using a firearm, often without a shot, but there is little coverage. If there is coverage it’s played off for the absurd, like the grandmother who held the teen at gun point, making him call the police on himself.
On the other hand, as I mentioned the media is quick to jump on every accidental shooting, every innocent bystander shot. That coverage is front page and is in lurid detail.
Another example of the mainstream media bias is coverage of the 2nd amendment rights during the presidential campaign. Now neither candidate is really bringing it up that often, but most of the media is giving Obama a pass on his supposed claims of supporting gun rights. Never mind he has a clear voting record opposing gun rights, the left stream media simply ‘parrots’ his claims without too much scrutiny.
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
It is what it is Becky. There is no pride or shame in a simple statement of fact no matter how disturbing or immoral. We didn’t do it, or are you somehow having a guilty conscience?
If you aren’t proud, turn any land you own there in Utah over to the Ute Tribal Corporation. Are you ready to pay down reparations for what you think your ancestors might have done?
Let’s see Stauffer, there could be subjugating white men in your past.
Any review of early American history describes Indians as quite savage, and capable of great violence, towards settlers, and each other.
Mohawk, in the language of the Algonquin, means, “Eaters of human flesh”. No surprise they got wiped, as for the rest of the peaceful Indians we have no excuse, but the facts remain.
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Alan, many words have been used to describe what was done to the Indian nations. But the word “subjugating” was your choice. It implies bringing to heel, ruling over, exercising dominion over, enslaving.
These are people we’re talking about. Human beings. In your (I assume) religious view, children of God.
I wonder why they were capable of great violence toward the people who had declared war against them. What are any of us capable of in defense of our homes and families?
Subjugated? Really, Alan, you’re going to stand by that characterization? You disgust me.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Bob S,
If you have a good strategy for generating positive PR on guns, lets hear it.
Here’s an idea:
“Guns, guns, guns, not just for killing anymore…”
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but my gun will splatter your brains.”
How about: “Are you bored? Tired of the peace and quiet? Turn up the heat and shatter the silence with a new improved, monogrammed semi-automatic Saturday Night Special. You’ll be the envy of you bowling team.”
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
That’s a hilarious Mattel ad! Can you imagine what would happen to a kid with a toy gun like that today! We treat our kids like they’re criminals if they show up to school with a sharp object for show and tell as a result of the fear-mongering of the right.
Mattel made my favorite childhood toy, but they must have taken it off the market because it had the distinct ability to burn your house down or severely burn the user:
Now wouldn’t you rather have a toy you could really use your imagination with Bob?
November 4th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Here’s another story for Bob S. …
Ex-con thinks he’s being robbed; fires 29 shots and kills 12-year-old trick-or-treater
SUMTER, S.C. — An ex-convict who thought he was being robbed gunned down a 12-year-old trick-or-treater, spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door, police said Saturday.
November 4th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Richard,
That is an example of how the newspapers can change the perspective.
First, it was not an “assault rifle” according to what I’ve read. It was a semi-automatic only; assault rifles are capable of in automatic mode (more then one round per trigger pull)
Second, the murderer was an ex-con, probably not even allowed to possess a firearm. Haven’t heard if his convictions were for felonies but betting the probably were.
Third, Given the fact his girlfriend ran out of the house with $7,500; isn’t likely that they were involved in drug trafficking again?
It is a tragedy that the child was killed and his family was hurt. The newspapers are playing up the “assault rifle” angle and not the contributing factors.
Why focus on the rifle and not the actions, the history of the ex-convict that did the killing? Perhaps the media has an anti-firearm agenda as I’ve said.
November 4th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Why focus on the action and not the gun Bob S? How about if he didn’t have a gun, there wouldn’t have been much action.
Without a gun this man is almost harmless and no one would have died.
November 4th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Bob S. — It was an AK-47, according to the Associated Press. That’s not an assault rifle?
November 4th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Richard,
Not necessarily. AK-47s can be sold as fully automatic or semi-automatic.
The cost of fully automatics is astronomical compared to the semi version. There are strict controls on the transfer of fully automatic weapons but of course crooks don’t follow those laws.
I haven’t seen any reports confirming it but in all likelihood it was the semi-automatic version.
November 4th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Cliff,
Without the drugs and the money, he would not have worried about getting robbed. Focusing on the actions - illegal drug dealing- also prevents any violence.
The benefit of focusing on the actions is it allows the law abiding gun owners to not be thrown under the bus for the actions of criminals like this guy.
It is almost like the newspapers want to correlate firearms with criminal activities without showing the positive side of firearms such as the sporting competitions or defensive gun uses.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
But Bob! There is nothing positive about guns. We’ve been down this road before. There are no acceptable studies that show the gun ownership saves more lives than it destroys.
Its like demanding positive news about landfills despite the fact that pollution still kills.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Bob S.– I’ll grant you it could have been a semi-automatic AK variant. However, I would be surprised to learn that the trick-or-treaters just stood there while the guy pulled the trigger 29 times. No doubt there will be follow-up stories to clarify this point.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Richard,
Tap your finger in your desk 29 times. That is how fast a semi-automatic can cycle. The automatic cyclic rate is 600 rounds per minute between the shock, reaction time and injuries it is not surprising that the criminal fired 29 rounds in a short time.
Cliff,
Nothing positive about guns?
The 2008 Olympics pistol competition saw some shocking results. A surprise gold medal winner in the pistol event is first time Olympic participant from China, Pang Wei who triumphed in the men’s 10m air pistol final. The silver pistol silver medalist in 2008 Beijing is Jin Jong-oh of South Korea while American marksman Jason Turner claimed the bronze to add another medal to the Beijing 2008 US total medal table.
Or how about this story?
As far as landfills go, I’ll pass on the joke about you knowing all about garbage. Especially since you don’t even know about that.
I’m not demanding positive stories, I’m pointing out that the media is biased and does not provide the positives stories that already exist.
It’s as if the media doesn’t want people to know they have a right to defend themselves using firearms if needed.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Bob, on the gun issue, I’ve never heard you advocate for anything but responsible gun use / know-how. That some are criminal in their use of guns will probably always be. That does not diminish your position.
Defending gun use in almost any context will stir some people (people who are also courageous in their love of liberty, but who see gun use as so potentially destructive) to consider such a defense as ‘fightin words’. Only in this fight the not-gun folks have to give proponents an advantage (guns are ominous) and that advantage is given only begrudgingly and with some envy.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Cav,
I’m not sure if I completely understand your position.
Thanks for the compliment on the first part. I hope that nothing in my comments can be considered advocating anything other then responsible use of firearms.
I’m not defending gun use in any context. I am saying that newspapers present gun use in a very consistent, very negative manner in the majority of the times.
Cliff asked how it could be changed. I was pointing out the reason some people are “not gun” folks is because of the scarcity of positive reports like the two I mentioned. Olympic shooting sports were barely covered, yet Olympic athletes are some of the best role models we have. The discipline, skill and perseverance needed for any Olympic athlete is breath taking; combine that with the discipline to handle firearms safely, wouldn’t that present a viable alternative picture to the “guns only cause death” meme?
It is not the firearm that is dangerous; but the person using it.