Sexism Is NOT The Problem, It's Ideological Bias Stupid!!

When Sarah Palin was first announced as VP, many people began attacking her personally. I know that her supporters have yelled "sexism". I, myself, felt that without a doubt sexism was an issue behind her attacks. However, I no longer think the attacks are sexist. I believe there is a much bigger underlying issue in the attacks, not just from the left, but from the media as well.

There is some sexism against her, but the core issue seems to be an ideological one, not a gender one. I have gone back and looked at some of the comments made about Palin in the media and on the blogs. They state that she is the anti-feminist and will bring down women. Why? Because as I have said in the past, liberals do not understand that their point of view can be an elitist one. I am a conservative, but I do not feel that my opinion speaks for everyone. Yet, if you read the attacks on Palin, those attackers feel that their point of view is the only point of view and Sarah Palin is the antipathy of those views.

Here are some examples in the media:

Campbell Brown of CNN questioned whether Palin could be a mother and Vice-President at the same time. At first glance you would think that she, as a woman, was being sexist. However, if you take a look at Campbell Brown's own life, you will find that is not the case. She is a mother of a small baby and has been working overtime as a CNN anchor during the campaign and political season. By questioning Palin's ability, she would have to question her own. Yet, it's not a female issue. It's an ideological one.

National Organization for Women states on it's own website that it is "taking action for women's equality since 1966". There is no way that this organization could be SEXIST right. That would stand against everything that they supposedly stand for. Yet, on their own website they have this posting: NOW PAC Chair Kim Gandy said, "Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical effort to appeal to disappointed Hillary Clinton voters and get them to vote, ultimately, against their own self-interest." Do I think they are sexist? No. Without a doubt this is an ideological issue. Apparently, NOW will now have to change it's name to NOLW or National Organization for Liberal Women because they no longer speak for those of us who are conservative.

Even during Charlie Gibson's interview with Palin, watching the disgust on his face at having to interview her was disheartening. Is Charlie Gibson sexist? For that matter, is ABC sexist. No. However, they do apparently take a left leaning turn at the ideological wheel. If you look at the parts of the interview with Palin that were edited out, you would think it was a completely different interview. You can read the full transcript here.
He misquoted her comment on sending the troops out on a mission from God. Is he a bad journalist? No, but is there a little bias in his interviewing?.....yes! You can compare the questions that Gibson asked Obama compared to those that he asked of Palin here. The bias is unmistakable.

Now does any of this matter to voters and to the election in general. The answer is yes. If the media that most Americans watch on a daily basis or read on a daily basis are openly showing their personal political views, how does the average American hear the truth? Good Luck. Even the NYT recently had to retract an article they had written about Palin that was false. Of course the retraction was three days later and placed on page seven.

I don't tell anyone who to vote for. You visit here knowing that I am Conservative and you will hear my point of view, but please make sure that you don't believe everything that you hear or read this election cycle. Great......now I am agreeing with Hollywood. Are pigs flying too?

Why Sarah Needs to be Sarah?

The McCain campaign must tread lightly while drilling Sarah Palin with foreign policy experience. Most of us who follow politics know that she is light in that area, but she can afford to be. The top of her ticket has enough foreign experience for both of them, unlike the top of that other ticket.

Sarah Palin is a natural. Anyone who has watched interviews that she has done in the past knows that she can hold her own. She speaks to the people, not the media, or other politicians. She comes across as one of us. After her now famous speech during the convention, Palin connected with the average person. After that same speech, Joe Biden said that he did not hear her talk about the middle class. He said that she never mentioned the middle class, not once. Well, duh, she is the middle class.

Many people stated that during last night's interview that she lost a little bit of the "Sarah" that we have found so endearing. That may be true. She had just sent her son off to war and was fighting that "gotcha" moment. Tonight 's interview was 100% better. She was Sarah again. She had her confidence back and she spoke genuinely about her beliefs and positions. Nothing was above her "pay grade".

Women relate to Sarah Palin because she seems like one of their friends. She is a woman who has proven she can do it all. Has she had her bumps in the process? I am sure she has, but that makes her even more appealing to "everyday" women.

I am sure you will hear the left say how she doesn't speak for all women. For some reason they feel threatened by the fact that she is pro-life, pro-gun, and loves God. They can't understand how educated women can support her so blindly. The problem with the left is that they assume everyone is like them. They assume that all women are pro-choice, that simply is not the case. News to the left......Sarah Palin has never assumed that she speaks for all women.

The fact is that Palin does not fake it. Her appeal is that she appears to speak from the heart. Advice for the left..........don't underestimate her or her positions with those "fly-over" folks. Advice for the McCain camp....stop worrying about gaffes.....let Sarah be Sarah.

Couric, Williams, Gibson High on Obama Kool-Aide

Are you kidding me? Can you be any more blatant about who you want to be our next President? All three top news networks are sending their top news anchors to Europe to ride the high of Barack Obama. Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Charlie Gibson will join Senator Obama in hopes of garnering an interview during his historic visit.

Historic visit? Do you remember the visits of past Presidential candidates who visited Europe or anywhere else for that matter? It was quite evident during the primary season that major networks were anti-Hillary. They practically handed the nomination to Obama. It wasn't until they were ridiculed by Saturday Night Live that some news organizations finally gave Hillary a break. Unfortunately, it was too late for her.

Now, again, the MSM (main-stream media) is trying to hand Obama another piece of the pie. When John McCain recently made visits to Columbia and Mexico were these anchors there clinging to his coat tails? How stupid do these people think the American people are? If this doesn't rally the Republican party, conservatives, independent thinking people, and yes, even Hillary Clinton supporters to support John McCain, I don't know what will.

Mr. Obama cannot buy this election. The media cannot give Barack Obama this election. This election will be decided by and for the American people. So Mrs. Couric, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Gibson enjoy your vacation in Europe. Your viewership is on the decline and blatant partisan-support such as this will only continue to drive the masses away from your networks. Thank you NBC, ABC, and CBS for my renewed drive to see that Barack Obama is not put into our highest office.