I agree that Ed Schultz is a dick. I respectfully disagree that his left-slanted douchebaggery reaches Fox-worthy proportions, but I do agree that he's a jerk. So, once again, I disagree with a fine point enough to feel it's worthy of mention but agree with tone and overall point.
Okay, one of us has to stop being reasonable. This is the internet after all, it's supposed to be flamewars, idiots, and pornography.
Schultz certainly isn't as bad as Hannity, I'll grant you that. I'm not even sure if he's as bad as O'Reilly honestly. I just think he's in the same camp as the crazy fox commentators. I see similar tactics and attitude. But it is always funny when he says something crazy during his psychotalk segment. One guy over at MSNBC I honestly do think is pretty centrist in his coverage is Chris Matthews (ironic, since he's actually had the opportunity to become a Democrat officially), but I don't think he gets credit for being as level-headed as he is. I know Laura Ingram loves to take unfair potshots at the guy.
One thing that's really amusing about Fox in my city is that they claim they're fair and balanced, etc. And yet they are officially partnered (in every capacity) with the ultra-conservative talk radio station in my town. So if there was any doubt before...
I could really get over Fox's bias if they'd just admit they have it. That's the only thing that pisses me off about them anymore. Reporting from an ideological slant is fine, but when you claim you don't when you obviously do, you give ammo to the "liberal media" argument (which is insane by the way) that nearly every Republican in the country takes on faith. I guess it's not surprising that the Republicans are convinced the channel which almost directly spouts their views is "fair."
And don't worry I'm sure we'll find something to violently disagree on eventually
The reason why I quote this is before she came out of obscurity she had an 80+% approval rating. There were points where she even in the 90+% range and thats just amazing to me. You dont gain an 80+ approval rating if you arent doing something right, hell you dont even get a 50% most of the time unless your doing a lot of things right. She's never fallen below 50% her whole carreer and from my point of view thats something all govenors should aspire to.
It's possible to have a 90% plus approval rating and still be making mistakes. It could be that you're charismatic, saying and doing things that makes people happy, but they haven't seen the logical conclusion of things. I gotta say that where I think Sarah Palin was. Before the recent round of things she actually did seem like a decent candidate, especially from an Alaskan's point of view. She was known as a watchdog up there for reporting a member of her own party for corruption. And when she was actually in office she was giving out checks to the people of Alaska.
Then the election came and they all got a hard and fast look at how she feels about the entire United States. Couple that with the inevitable failure of her policies, the myriad of scandals not related to trooper gate you failed to mention (like the controversy over pipeline bidding), plus all of the rest of the stuff I've mentioned. I think she was good at winking and shutting up until the election. Then she saw a chance to become VP, pulled out all of the stops, and destroyed her governorship by playing too hard.
It makes me feel sorry for the citizen's of alaska because it seemed like she was doing the right thing for her state. The media and by extension the public have hounded her to a point where she cant do her job anymore. Whether for the good of her state or herself she cant make a decision without an entire nation second guessing her and I personally dont think thats fair. When she was up for election as the Vice President I think it was fair for anyone to speak up but when it comes to just Alaska, guess what? Most of us are not voters there so we dont get a say. Just like how the people in Europe dont get to vote on things that effect our country.
You do realize she kept feeding the media frenzy, right? She kept herself in the spotlight purposely by constantly going to speaking engagements, having personal sit downs with the media, and other high profile actions. Of course she remained in the national spotlight, but it wasn't unwanted, she really thought she could handle it (and by many's account she has). I don't think her quitting has anything to do with the media at all. If she wanted them to leave her alone, all she had to do was stop appearing on their shows or flying out to the "lower 49" to give speeches about her crazy brand of conservatism. Shutting up isn't that hard.
Maybe I made sense here, I kind of doubt it, but maybe people can see what I see through the bias, media feeding frenzy, and political bullshit.
I think you craft a decent argument, but it's kinda hard to feel sorry for the woman, because even if she is a victim like you claim (which I doubt to the nth degree) she's been in the driver's seat all along. It was her attitude and rhetoric during the campaign that torpedoed McCain's chances of winning, then she has the nerve to start an media image makeover and grab power in the Republican party (by attending C-Pak among other things), she's even sent her daughter around campaigning on abstinence. And if you don't think Sarah's behind that, watch the first interview where her daughter actually admits she isn't for abstinence only, suddenly she 180s and starts touting mommy's position?
She's gearing up for a larger position of authority in this country. The sad thing is she might have a decent bid at all if people's attention spans are short and they fall for her "boo hoo poor me" bullshit. The David Letterman thing was ridiculous, and in that light this particular event isn't anything special either. She's always looking for sympathy and attention to round out her hopes of running for higher office.