Uncategorized

A Press Release for Sarah Palin

Uncategorized

Poor Sarah Palin. She has been accused of contributing to a culture of violence against politicians, and her staff seems unable to craft a convincing statement distancing her “crosshairs” map from Giffords’ assassination attempt.

Lots of folks on the left are eager to find her complicit in the shooting, which is unfortunate. She is no more at fault for the shooting as Marilyn Manson was at fault for Columbine.

But she cannot categorically deny that she did not use violent, vigilante rhetoric during the midterm election. It’s effective rhetoric that gets the constituents fired up, regardless of whether or not folks understand it as a metaphorical call to arms or as a literal call. It helped get many of her endorsed candidates elected; it also helped “target” her opponents. We can appreciate why she used it. We can also appreciate the PR dilemma she’s in now.

So how do you acknowledge the use of violent rhetoric while denying it was a factor in the shooting, all while not looking like the bad guy? Like this:

“During the midterm election SarahPAC used a lot of hunting rhetoric in our support for our endorsed candidates. In light of the assassination attempt on Representative Giffords, many media outlets have recalled that rhetoric in an attempt to make sense of this tragedy.

Our midterm campaign centered around motivating our constituents to support candidates through voting and contributions. To be sure, our campaign materials were always bundled with an appeal to vote and to contribute to our endorsed candidates. We “targeted” races where we wanted people to fight for our shared principles with their votes and money, not with violence.

Although we reject the implication that the campaign contributed to the attack, whether intentionally or otherwise, we regret that the campaign has been interpreted by a call for violent action. We categorically condemn ANY act of violence against our political leaders, regardless of their political persuasions. SarahPAC does not endorse violence. We endorse political action through voting, canvassing, supporting, and serving our country like informed engaged, law-abiding citizens. That has been our goal since SarahPAC was founded, and it will continue to be our goal in the future.”

You’re welcome, Sarah.

01.09.11. Third cup (skinny hazelnut latte). Starbucks on Westchester and Main.

Uncategorized

This Starbucks is playing classical music this afternoon. It’s a nice change from the Norah Jones that seems to be playing every other time I’m here. I don’t know the name of the piece that was playing when I came in, but it was a piece I associate with my mother. Mom had a multiple-album collection of classical music she played a lot in the house when I was a little boy, and one of those pieces was playing when I sat down in one of the comfy chairs in the corner.

“How do you know that’s what caused it?”

Uncategorized

From Tucson Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s press conference on the Giffords shooting:

Dupnik: Let me say one thing, because people tend to poo-poo this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off doing that.  That may be free speech.  But it’s not without consequences.

Reporter: How do you know that that’s what caused it?

Dupnik: You don’t.

01.08.11. Fourth cup. Home.

Uncategorized

This is the first cup from my new coffee maker. The old coffee maker dripped coffee when the decanter wasn’t in place, and I decided to spend part of my Target gift card on a new, cleaner machine. This first pot isn’t as strong as I would like, but perhaps in time the coffee maker will get worn in, not unlike how burgers taste better from older grills instead of new ones.

I have not yet started work on my manuscripts. I spent the afternoon watching the coverage of Congresswoman Gifford’s shooting. (Is it too soon to call it an assassination attempt?) A few thoughts about the coverage:

1. Not one of the big three networks interrupted their coverage of sporting events to report on the shooting. To use the vernacular of my students, that was a total fail. One of our elected federal servants was tragically attacked today, but decisions were made not to interrupt the football and basketball broadcasts. Unacceptable.

2. Since I couldn’t get coverage from the TV networks, I checked cnn.com, msnbc.com, and foxnews.com for updates. I clicked between all three to see if the pages would reload with new information, and kept getting discouraged when they would not update fast enough. All three of those sites failed in comparison to huffingpost.com’s live blog. I hope we don’t have another national tragedy anytime soon, but if we do my first stop online will be to The Huffington Post.

3. NPR reported Congresswoman Gifford’s death during the 2:00 ET news break. It seems they got that information from the sheriff’s office. (CNN, msnbc.com, and Reuters also reported her death shortly thereafter.) Typically, the sheriff’s office is a solid source for information in crime stories, so it was not unacceptable to run with that information. Still, I am curious if NPR will modify its standards for reporting the deaths of political figures.

When I worked for CNN in the late 1990s, we had a list of prominent persons whose deaths were basically imminent, such as President Reagan, Elizabeth Taylor, Billy Graham and Pope John Paul II. There were specific instructions laid out for the producers on who to verify for the deaths of each person. For instance, there was a particular office or representative from The Vatican who had to be contact to affirm that the Pope had died, and a specific representative from either President Reagan or Nancy Reagan’s staff who would verify his death. If those persons had not verified the death, despite rumors to the contrary, CNN would not report that they had died.