Tuesday, January 18, 2011

"Picking At Scabs"


"Picking scabs is a remarkably self-perpetuating way to act out obsessive-compulsive tendencies that often signal an underlying, often as-yet-undiagnosed mood or anxiety disorder. Patients often describe the experience as comforting even though painful. And it’s very unsightly." – www.skinpic.com.

In the wake of the tragic Tucson shootings, the unanimous opinion of rational observers, as well as polling results, indicated the vast majority of the American citizenry, did not believe Sarah Palin, Right-Wing Media, Talk Radio or any other conservative icon, had anything to do with those horrific events. Governor Palin, scandalously accused of having a motivational influence on the shootings, issued a statement, denouncing the opinioned vitriol surrounding the incidents. Later that night, President Obama travelled to Tucson and did what Presidents are expected to do in times of crisis – assure, stabilize and calm. The Nation observed, absorbed and reflected; intent on salving its wounds.

Insistent at picking at scabs, Sarah Palin, adroitly alternating between being victim and valiant warrior, continued her unapologetic, defensive and personal rebuttal of the post-Tucson Left Wing media bile, during an appearance on the Sean Hannity show Monday evening.

Why?  What, if anything, did we learn? And was it necessary?

The “Why” may be the toughest question to answer, as the interview offered no potential political benefit to Palin. Appearing on Hannity, whose audience comprises a significant percentage of the Governor’s support base, offers her little chance to engage with Americans outside her political cocoon. No doubt her fans will herald this appearance, yet she will not have directly touched the majority of Americans who hold a dim view of her. Of course,  they’ll learn of the interview and Palin’s remarks, but only through the filter of the “Lame Stream Media” the Alaskan Mama Grizzly purports to despise. Is this a savvy political strategy or another cagey opportunity to excoriate the LSM for misrepresentation?

What did we learn?

Well,  for one thing, Palin thankfully cleared up the cross hairs/surveyor’s marks issue. Palin  seemingly has contradicted her spokesperson, Rebecca Monsour, who, in a frantic and feeble attempt at damage control, went on the gun-wielding Tammy Bruce’s talk show, the day of the Tucson shooting, insisting Palin's controversial campaign map was populated not with gun sights or cross hairs, but....”surveyor’s marks.” 

Well on Hannity, Palin quite forthrightly asserted about her map ad,  “…the graphic that was used was cross hairs, targeting the different districts.” 

Perhaps Rebbecca didn’t get the daily press briefing memo.

We also learned, Palin keeps really cool company, citing Rush, Sean and Mark Levin as fellow victims of the LSM attacks. Throw in Fox News for good measure, and you have what most political observers have known for some time. If Sarah runs in 2012, she’ll have the talk radio troika pulling for her. The GOP 2012 field should take note; it’s doubtful any of them will get a fair shake if she’s in.

 
Finally, was this interview necessary?

That answer will be only found in the hearts and minds of the beholder. Rather than let the Nation heal, Hannity - ever the obsequious and opportunistic host - felt it of great importance to provide a showcase for Palin’s defensiveness, and further traumatize this story. The only apparent need was to bolster and uphold the Palin brand, covering all the issues and slights, for 30 minutes and through 3 commercial breaks, despite the sad events not being about former Governor.

This interview cast no new light on the issues and merely served as a political stage for Palin to re-assert herself, letting the world know she will not be quiet, sit down or go away. Palin gave a sound and strong response last week. Why not leave it at that and let the wounds heal? Her respect level would increase ten-fold, by eschewing such juvenile re-hashing's, as opposed to her defiant posturing. Leadership is stepping up and looking beyond what your enemies throw at you, not in picking at the scabs to renew further bleeding.

Sarah Palin seems very comfortable as the common sense conservative Mama Grizzly, doling out platitudes, being a political lighting rod and turning out the vote during elections. Hannity, Rush and Levin will nurture, protect and defend her; earnestly, ardently and with vigor. Their base is her base, and she is the symbolic figure around which to rally the talk radio troops.

Palin may run for the office of President in 2012, or she may not. Perhaps she will decide to try down the road or maybe even never.  And if she realizes she can’t win with the majority of Americans, Palin may learn to be quite content, being the insulated and protected voice of a very loud and vibrant, Talk Radio and Cable TV minority.

34 comments:

Bill589 said...

Despite all the attacks, she has gained supporters with her video, 10,000 on just that day. Hannity's interview went well. Those threatened will attack her relentlessly, until/unless somebody else threatens them more.

It seems when the ‘smart ones’ say she’s politically finished, is when she picks up the most new supporters. This past week or so has been great for her in that respect.

For now, “Blood Libel” is just the newest “Death Panels.” Another truth she can beat the Left over the head with.

Anonymous said...

Doug, first I would like to commend you on probably your most well written article since you began posting your thoughts on these blogs we read.

BUT

More on this later cause I have gotta run.

jerseyrepublican

Noelle said...

I thought Palin's video response was good. Actually I only read it, did not watch it, so at least I thought the content was good. I did watch the Hannity interview last night. In my opinion it was not good. First, it was unnecessary. The question regarding blame for the Tuscon shooting has been answered. No right-minded person thinks Palin or any other conservative is responsible. It was clearly the act of a mentally unhinged person who was in no way influenced by the conservatives. Secondly, even though she said several times "this is not about me," she seemed to make it too much about her.

I did like one line, however. She said "if it weren't for double standards, the left would have no standards at all."

OhioJOE said...

I do not know if I'd go that far Jersey, but it certain was a better preformance than what we saw from that side yesterday.

OhioJOE said...

"No right-minded person thinks Palin or any other conservative is responsible." Unfortunately, according to a CNN poll, a portion of our population is not right-minded.

Anonymous said...

Doug, Palin did admit they were crosshairs (Sean spared her the question of Mansour's surveyor claims) but she said, "if, in fact, the map has been taken down" like she doesn't know (ha) and then says it was the graphic artist, as if she had no connection? Who's running the PAC, anyway? This is leadership?

That's just one thing, and there were many things in the interview that were questionable. Bottom line is that Palin is still not showing the proper concern for the real victims, and continues to make this all about poor Sarah being picked on again.

This is a fiasco for Palin, IMO. And she just made it worse with the interview.

In the interview, she also said her video statement came after the memorial, when in fact, she did it the morning of the memorial, before Obama's speech---in order to get the most political impact. The timing was shameful, especially since she accuses others of politicizing the story.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

One bizarre statement was that she hoped the family's mourning would be supernaturally turned into joy. Certainly, I believe that God alone can heal these wounds, but obviously, we're a long way from joy at the moment, and the comment seemed callous and dismissive of what the victim's families are presently going through.

Just my opinion.

-Martha

Right Wingnut said...

Doug, You are the one insistent on "picking scabs." The interview was fantastic.

I don't have time to comment further...

OhioJOE said...

"Bottom line is that Palin is still not showing the proper concern for the real victims," Haha, yeah it was Sarah PAC that handed out free T-shirts at the University. It was Mrs. Palin that was bragging about what a good University there is in Tucson and it was Mrs. Palin who also was clapping and carrying on at the Memorial Service? Please!

OhioJOE said...

"Doug, You are the one insistent on "picking scabs." " haha, I would not blame this whole thing on Doug, but yes it is funny how people do help create the world they live in.

Anonymous said...

OJ, when I commended Doug's writing, I was commending the quality of the prose and the style of the words...NOT THE CONTENT.

jerseyrepublican

OhioJOE said...

Well Jersey, I know I may be unique, but I care a lot more about the content.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen the Sarah Palin Battle Hymn?

BOSMAN, I think we need a post!

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Back to my review of your article:

There are a couple places that were redundant...look at the end of the paragraph where you question whether it was a needed task or to further her credentials...and then you begin the next one sentence paragraph with the question..."was it necessary." Just a little redundant.

Also there are a couple of spelling errors.

I really do think you have talent as a writer and would make a good journalist but your thesis seems to be all over the place. I understand your questioning of the necessity of her appearance on Hannity but you never really drew a conclusion...you just seemed to dance around possible opinions.

Knowing you(kinda) I understand what this piece was all about...I disagree with your sentiment but that's neither here nor there.

Your title was very provocative...Picking at Scabs...I immediately thought...WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? It didn't take me long to assume and realize that it was indeed about Sarah Palin. You will definitely get some points from the readers of this site but...I'll just leave it at that...but...

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

OJ, you're not unique but you do seem a bit fiesty lately? I agree with you...content is king and I chose my better angels because it's pointless to argue with some of these folks. We'll never agree and only time will be wasted. So, I chose the higher path and decided to highlight some plusses in his piece. I have yet to watch the Hannity interview so my input would be both ignorant and premature.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Doug,

Okay, I am watching the interview as I post my, more in depth, critique of your piece and unfortunately I am finding more and more wrong with your article.

This time with the content.

You question the necessity of Palin to further explain or discuss the Tuscon shootings and the Left's reprehensible act of pushing the blame to Palin...you refer to the entire interview as, "Picking at Scabs."

Although your title is witty and provocative it completely misses the point of the obvious nature of this interview and truly says a lot about you as a political observer and a supporter of Governor Romney's Presidential aspirations.

Silence and guilt.

Are they one in the same? Many criminal law experts hold the theory that a guilty person will usually remain silent about the course of events that occurred. Perhaps this why you wish that Palin would indeed keep silent? Perhaps that is too Macchiavellian to accuse you of? All I know is that this interview was Palin's first television appearance since the events unfolded and to suggest that in her first television appearance since being accused of having blood on her hands that she remain silent is probably one of the most ignorant things that I could imagine a politico to endorse.

This brings me to wonder where your thinking comes from...what's your angle?

As a Romney supporter, I am sure, you've had to endure many questions about Romney's silence and/or verbal action regarding his position on the many policies he has signed or agreed with over the years. I am sure you wouldn't expect Romney to silence his own opinion on his own actions on those policies?

I mean, one could argue that his defense of MassCare was beating a dead horse, that he couldn't possibly bring back to life. If you were one of his advisers, or just as a supporter, would you expect him to be silent or to search out a venue to refute his critics?

As a critic of MassCare, I suggested Romney apologize for enacting legislature that would eventually lead to the creation of a national version. In my mind I felt I was helping Romney and his supporters...what I didn't realize, at the time, was that neither Romney, or his supporters, felt guilty over any association between MassCare and ObamaCare so why should they silently plead their case of guilt?

So, why should Palin?

jerseyrepublican

Doug NYC GOP said...

JR - Thanks for comments on quality. I corrected the spelling errors. I also removed the redundant sentence and reworked the question. You'd be a good newspaper editor!

Doug NYC GOP said...

The issues raised in the post were framed as questions, so readers could be left to draw their own conclusions. The over-arching theme is, "Why does Palin feel the need to keep this story going or continue 'picking at scabs?'"

Palin made a solid statement last week. Shockingly, I even said so, in writing. Why come back on TV and go over the same ground again? Was she addressing some new attack? Did she bring new info to the fore?

If I'm missing something here, please let me know.

Anonymous said...

Doug, I just finished listening to the interview and I reread your article and let me tell you I was impressed with bith. You do raise some questions that people can ponder and draw conclusions from but, as any good ope-ed would do, you're steering their answers to fulfil the intended purpose of your questions. Which is fine.

Again, my question to you...would you have expected Governor Romney to remain silent when asked about MassCare directly after the passing of ObamaCare? I mean this is her first television appearance since the shooting and the first interview since she was accused of having blood on her hands. Do you really think questions wouldn't be asked? Do really think she shouldn't elaborate on her earlier message?

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Honestly I can understand ones questioning of timing but I cannot understand how anyone could possibly question the content of that interview.

Palin did a remarkable job. I noticed some can nit-pick certain details or phrases that Palin chose, I think it's petty and completely missing the points she eloquently made.

Since you did not address the content of the interview I must assume you agree with the sentiment of her answers.

jerseyrepublican

Doug NYC GOP said...

JR- Thanks for looking at this objectively.

Let's not twist this around into my support Gov. Romney, silence, guilt or Macchiavellian motivations. I'm not that deep. Nor do I look at everything through a 2012 prism.

Doing this type of interviews borders on being self-serving a little crass, in light of the tragic events. If this was merely about policy, then she can talk all day. But Hannity was promoting this interview all weekend and it was nearly re-played on Greta's show. I'm sure it will covered and discussed again today.

If Palin wanted to go on Hannity - she could have discussed it and then dismissed it, in the first 5 minutes. That would've been leadership.

Anonymous said...

Good piece, Dougie...

Look, TOO MUCH Sarah is ruining her appeal to the American public.

Her numbers have crashed, showing (that what's left of her popularily) has dipped to an all- time low.

Solution: Take six months to a year off, Sarah. For your and our own good. Enough already, Alaska lady.

Anonymous said...

Doug, this is where we disagree. Surely you wouldn't condemn the victims, or their families, for discussing the tragic events that took place so why would you condemn another innocent victim that was borne from this tragedy? Sure, no blood was lost but Palin was a victim of a distortion of truth, and lies, yet she should remain silent when asked? In no means am I comparing the two events, other than the fact that the second was born from the first.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Doug, if I suggested your motives for this piece was based on your support of Romney or his 2012 Presidential aspirations, other than finding fault, with Palin, due to the biases you inherrently have against her, yet for Romney, then I apologize if I was off base?

It seemed as if silence was the answer you would have preferred from Palin, yet silence is a proven symptom of guilt. You're a reasonable person so I know you understand that Palin's silence on this issue would just highlight any guilt, her critics, have of her. My pondering of your motives was no more than your pondering of Palin's motives for defending herself against baseless lies and distorted truths.

jerseyrepublican

BTW, you haven't answered my question...would you have advised Romney to remain silent after being accused of laying the groundwork for ObamaCare?

jerseyrepublican

Doug NYC GOP said...

JR - No, I would not have advised Romney to remain silent in addressing HC, but again, that's a policy discussion.

BTW, I also asked some questions which have remained unanswered. But that's ok.

Moving forward, now that Palin's had her oppurtunity to answer all the charges and questions, is it safe to assume the "defense" has rested?

Anonymous said...

Jersey, I can't help but answer you.

This is murder, loss of life and tragedy. There is NO comparison to ObamaCare/RomneyCare.

Palin could have issued a short paragraph addressing everything. Instead she issued an 8 minute video on the day of mourning, and has now done a 20+ minute interview defending herself.

Does it not strike you as even a little bit inappropriate? Or overkill?

Just to be clear, this is what I believe:

1. I DO NOT think Palin is in the any way responsible for the shootings. The accusations against her are beyond the pale.

2. Her rhetoric IS divisive. She is rude, dismissive of anyone who doesn't think like she does, and hurls insults to the Obama's right and left. Not only that, I've heard enough about reloading to last a lifetime. This is NOT the way to attract more people to our party.

3. In an effort to defend herself, she has exhibited very poor judgment, appears self-serving, and raised the firestorm by using blood libel. I don't care if it's true, it was throwing gas on the fire.

I can't imagine what the victims and their families think of Palin at this point.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Doug, I am more than happy to address any questions that I may have missed, what were they again?

MassCare is a policy discussion that Romney had a very powerful hand in, the Tuscon shootings Palin had no part in whatsoever...they both have a right and are probably expected to voice their opinions of their critics assertions.

It's safe to assume that I am fine with the way Palin conducted herself during the events of the past week and that she has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of but I cannot blame her if other people ask her questions about it and she answers them.

jerseyrepublican

Revolution 2012 said...

Great Post Doug!

I agree that rehashing these tragic events certainly don't benefit the victims. THEN WHO?


JR,

"would you have advised Romney to remain silent after being accused of laying the groundwork for ObamaCare?"


First, How can you compare being falsly accused of being reponsible for a policy with the tragic events in Arizona.

Romney made a statement addressing the tragedies. The TRAGEDIES and prayers for the victims and their families. Nothing loaded that needed any clarifications. He made his statement ABOUT THEM not him.

Do you hear him defending himself for being in the mid-east to nut cases like Michael Savage, an other delusional critics? NO!

If he had a hankering respond to them, I would advise him NOT TOO!

Anonymous said...

Rev, no offense but are you aware of what happened since the shootings? Palin was "falsely accused" of having blood on her hands for the shootings in question.

I am not comparing policy with the tragic shootings, I am comparing the aftermath of the false accusations with the "false accusations" that Romney and his supporters claim about the similarities between MassCare and ObamaCare.

According to you Romney was "falsely accused" for being responsible for a policy. The difference is that one can make a cogent argument that Romney's part in MassCare could have helped inspire ObamaCare, one cannot make that same assertion about Palin's involvement in the Tuscon shootings because she had absolutely ZERO involvement in them.

Following the tragedies, Palin made a brief statement to the same effect that Romney made, then when the witch hunt began she made another statement against the distortions the media was making against herself but more importantly conservatives.

I hope you can see your own biases and how they affect the criticisms you throw at Palin everyday and the opinion you have of everything she does...because it so transparent.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

I am trying to show that SILENCE is a symptom of guilt. Palin was not guilty of anything but the press has tried their hardest to pin it on her and most likely she'll pay that price in the polls. Romney supporters claim that Romney's MassCare is not guilty of inspiring ObamaCare. Romney supporters say that Palin should remain silent...I merely asked if Romney should have remained silent when he was being accused of doing something, or having a hand in, ObamaCare, that him and his supporters claim he wasn't guilty of?

Like I said SILENCE is a SYPMTOM of GUILT.

jerseyrepublican

Doug NYC GOP said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doug NYC GOP said...

"Silence is a symptom of guilt." - JR

Not all the time apparently.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899502,00.html

GetReal said...

I don't have a problem with the way Palin expressed herself, I have no idea if I would feel differently if I were personally involved in the tragedy, but I don't think she did anything wrong in this instance.

As for the Romney/Obamacare question...I dislike the way people always link the two in a vacuum - as if Obama had no health care reform aspirations until seeing Masscare. Obama WANTED single payer - and at the time he had a filibuster proof majority in both houses.

Things probably would have been a lot worse, one way or the other, without Romney having ever been elected in Massachusetts.

BOSMAN said...

Doug,

Loved the Piece.

As usual, you were SPOT ON!!!