Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Jon Stewart Considers MEast Crisis & Attacks Palin! No Losing VP In 100 Years Was Attacked 4 Years Later By National Media.Why?
John Stewart reviews the Middle East crisis and attacks....Sarah Palin! ditto the Washington Post on Palin's views on economics.These are just two recent incidences of literally hundreds of anti-Palin comments in various media
The question must be asked, yet again, if Palin is supposedly irrelevant and will never hold office again etc. etc. why is she the subject of unprecedented attacks from the leftist media and the Dem's?
Which losing VP candidate was the subject of an attack by a previous presidential candidate for the opposing party at their convention four years later? Which losing VP candidate was included in a hate figure video at such a convention as Palin was? Sort of like an Emmanuel Goldstein 3 minute hate film with the ensuing boos.
Nobody as a losing VP candidate, from either major party, in the last 100 years has been the subject of continuing, nasty and seemingly endless attacks four years after their losing run. Something knew, strange and frankly unsettling in its ramifications has happened. Frankly, the media and left in general, has become unhinged by the ex-Governor of a far away state. Here's the proof of a one hundred year situation which is totally unprecedented and mysterious.
Vice-presidential candidates who lost since 1912*
1912 Nicholas Butler. No nationwide media attacks on him.
1916 Charles Fairbanks No attacks four years later because he was dead, but unlikely there would have been any anyway.
1920 F.D. R. (Before he was F.D.R.) Plenty of attacks in New York state but nationwide-nothing.
1924 Charles Bryan Who? (actually W J Bryan's brother)
1928 Joe Robinson. Nope, nothing happened
1932 Charles Curtis. See Fairbanks
1936 Frank Knox. Nothing happening for Frank nationwide negative media wise
1940 Charles McNary. See Curtis/Fairbanks
1944 John Bricker. Didn't suffer from adverse media attacks
1948 Earl Warren. Plenty of media attacks when he was Supreme Court head but not presidential election attacks.
1952 John Sparkman. No sparks
1956 Estes Kefauver. See Curtis et al. Mortality rate surprisingly high for losing VP candidates.
1960 Henry Lodge. Too patrician to be attacked
1964 William Miller. Who?
1968 Edmund Muskie. Faded into political oblivion
1972 Sargent Shriver. Too likeable to be attacked and never taken seriously as a candidate
1976 Bob Dole. Nice gentleman who the media woudl have been seen as bullies picking on ex post facto.
1980 Walter Mondale. No personality to attack
1984 Geraldine Ferraro. From obscurity and back again. Also the days when women were not fair game.
1988 Lloyd Bentsen. No point in attacking the harmless, dignified, old gentleman.
1992 Dan Quayle. Same as Bentsen but young/undignified.
1996 Jack Kemp. No threat to anyone and too nice a guy to attack for no discernible reason.
2000 Joe Lieberman. Not a nationwide candidate possibility but attacked in Connecticut by his own party.
2004 John Edwards. Beyond any possibility of being attacked politically as utterly dead politically.
2008-2012. Sarah Palin. Attacked without any remorse or ethics, and often any discernible reason, from her national début to this very day. Hated by the leftist media/Dem's/Hollywood (all one and the same).
Not running for any office four years from VP nod yet would have had, surely more attacks than any previous candidate either during campaign and afterwards.
This is of course beyond any logical explanation and lies in the field of psychology rather than psephology. Unless of course there is an underlying fear amongst the left in its various guises that Palin remains a threat to them.
They must, surely perceive her as having enough influence to unseat their candidates or, at some future time may run for the presidency. If she was not a threat to under either one of those scenarios then the question must be asked, is their something fundamentally unhinged amongst the denizens of the leftist media?
Columnist Suzie Parker touched on this in a recent article on Palin. The hint that the cause of the left's "vitriol" is fear is well founded I think, but still comes with a tint of manic irrationality;
* This list is created under the definition of "rhetorical device" as so defined
“The problem isn't her or even some of the Republican insiders who might malign her in the media. The problem is the vitriolic nature of the Democratic attacks that would almost instantly come to dominate all of the campaign coverage, if she were to engage in a significant amount of high-profile surrogate stumping on the trail.”
Posted by M. Joseph Sheppard at 12:20 PM