Bull! Sarah shouldn’t have answered? It was her turning off voters by calling the media out for blood libel? She should just rise above the fray? Ridiculous!!!!!!!
It would have been much worse if she said nothing, even Fox News ganged up on her for responding which I thought was a fine speech
Two weeks after the incident one of her most vicious attackers no longer has a job. You tell me who won that one.
Their intent was to shut her up.
Why should she give them what they want?
Not responding to accusations gave us Pelosi, Reid and Obama.
It would have been one thing it it was just crap going around the ‘net, but every major news outlet, down to their tiniest affiliate, were immediately playing up the Palin map when it had absolutely no more bearing on the shooting than what Gifford had for breakfast.
And then, in the absence of ANY connection to Palin, they only increased the attacks.
Somebody has to make a STAND!
It doesn’t matter if she hadn’t said anything. She would have been attacked regardless, and by reading your post you would be right in the middle of those attacking her because she kept quiet. So don’t come to me saying she should have been quiet
Bull! Sarah shouldn’t have answered? .... It would have been much worse if she said nothing, ....
Which was certainly George W. Bush's experience -- and his daddy's, IIRC, whom the press managed to cut down to loserdom in the space of a single year so their boy Slick the Sinkmeister could win.
Someone has to fight back, but only Sarah in this case, or the White House, in Bush's case, owns a megaphone big enough to overcome the Leftist Media Claque.
It's a conundrum, and a problem deliberately created (with malice aforethought, it goes without saying) by the Gramscian "long-march" traitors in our media.