Sarah Palin is going to address a gun convention (which is really more of a hunters convention) later in January. Makes sense; she’s a hunter, she’s a well-known defender of the Second Amendment, she’s never actually had a hand in killing anyone. But The Hill is making a big deal out of her speech, weeks before it has even happened. Someone named Jordan Fabian wrote the article, which ought to serve as a study in biased framing by omitting key facts:
The address comes amid a debate in Congress over gun rights that followed the shootings of 20 people at a meet-and-greet event for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). Palin’s speech will likely be watched to see if she references the Arizona shooting, which left six dead and 14 wounded, including Giffords.
Palin was drawn into the debate after liberals criticized materials on her political action committee’s website, which, in calling for the defeat of Giffords and other Democrats, put their districts in the crosshairs of a rifle. Palin defended herself with a lengthy message on Facebook this week that ended up causing more controversy. Her message came out the day of a memorial service for the victims of the shooting, and her use of the term ”blood libel” also created a firestorm.
Note the lack of counter facts and context. The liberals’ criticism was patently unfair, but The Hill doesn’t say that. Democrats have published very similar materials to those Palin’s PAC produced, but The Hill doesn’t say that. Palin’s facebook message was probably half as long as President Obama’s Tucson speech, but The Hill doesn’t say that. The “blood libel” usage was perfectly defensible, according to liberals like Alan Dershowitz, among others. And the “firestorm” was yet another liberal manufactured dustup, without basis in fact.
The way Fabian has framed this piece, he can criticize Palin for attending, and he can just as nastily criticize her if she decides not to attend. One, she’s bad and out of touch, two, she knows she’s on the defensive and wants to repair her image, or whatever. Heads – her liberal critics win, tails – Sarah Palin loses.
I just have one question: Jordan Fabian, why are you still hunting Sarah Palin?
In the last election the GOP ran an experienced moderate
canidate against an inexperienced far left member of the Senate.
The McCain loving media abandoned him, the moderate democrats ran
from him. Now the far left seems to have some need to hunt down and
kill his VP. For decades we have heard run a moderate repubican
and you will win. That seems to be a lie. Why the need to destroy
Palin? I have no idea,except that she represents you and me. Palin
is not a member of the elite or political class. For some reason
that makes her dangerious to the far left. Or maybe that as a woman
there is some feeling that she has betrayed her gender by not being
a democrat.
Mr. Preston: I just have one question: Jordan Fabian, why
are you still hunting Sarah Palin? Didnt you get the ObamaMemo?
This is the new civility.
Lefties have a fever…and the only answer is more Palin. They prefer to have her disappear yet she continues to appear on their writing and other rantings.
If she does mention the slaughter of the innocents in
Tuscon by the lunatic, I hope she proposes that much of the
slaughter could have been prevented by a single citizen carrying a
loaded firearm and willing to shoot the man. Better than that,
Loughner may have even been deterred from his rampage against
defenceless people had he reason to believe that, if he pulled a
gun, a citizen would shoot him. He may be insane, but he isnt
crazy; he was pretty sure that he was the only one who would be
doing the shooting that day. The fact that he was subdued by a
little old lady and two ferocious but elderly gentlemen tells you
what a true candy ass this guy is. I found it a little ironic that
he was bleating about how they were hurting his arm after hed shot
20 people and killed 6.