(Link to the article: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2079871/stasi-tactics-from-camp-obama.thtml)
Melanie Phillips makes an unconscious effort to make her extreme right-wing doctrine of beliefs through this article to defend Sarah Palin. She begins by stating that “the joke is on them” in reference to the media for attacking Palin on her lack of (any) knowledge (whatsoever) about foreign affairs. Later on in the article, Phillips poses the question about Obama's reaction (intimidation) to Sarah Palin, “Is Obama a man or a moose?” What is interesting about this is Obama's lack of reaction to Sarah Palin, mostly because the media has taken care of it. Obama's “attack” on Sarah Palin is nothing different than what two politicians may argue about in running a campaign. Secondly, I find her points to be quite defensive, as well as incorrect. Obama is not the one who is “falling to pieces”, as she says; in fact, Palin is the one who has become the butt of everyone's jokes, liberals and conservatives alike. Third of all, Phillips states that, “the biosphere is shredding the smears being hurled at Palin as fast as they are being produced.” I also find this to be an extremist opinion, since, at least in the U.S., everything being “hurled” at Palin is being recycled over and over again in the media: t.v., internet, newspapers, magazines, etc. Despite all of these facts, Phillips still insists that the left is becoming weaker and weaker, “the totalitarian left is terrified of argument because it knows itself to be on very weak ground.” When, in fact, Obama has generally been ahead so far on the polls. Lastly, not only are Phillips' attacks on the left-wing democrats weak and defensive, she clearly has no proof of them. In her attacks she uses words such as “apparently” to “prove” what the left is doing. As often I say when something is so ridiculous that it actually frustrates me, that's just a bunch of crap. Phillips seems to have a genuine problem understanding politics, as is recognizable in the last paragraph of her article, “That is why her interview is at this very moment being misreported and distorted even though millions of people watched it and heard it.” Thanks for the news flash, Melanie Phillips, but just curious.. have you ever watched a political campaign? That IS politics. Another issue that Phillips touches on that also IS politics is the democrats “insult and smear” is calling Palin a fundamentalist. Just to make sure that I wasn't acting irrationally, I researched to be sure of what the definition of fundamentalism is:
| 3. | strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives. |
Oh boy, that must be a very insulting term for an extreme conservative.
Not only does Phillips ragingly defend Sarah Palin, but also attacks the democratic party as a whole. In the second paragraph, in reference to Palin's baby, Phillips states, “When they look at Trig, they don't see a small and vulnerable human being; they don't see the power of triumphing over adversity; all they see is a handicapped thing that should never have been allowed to live.” Woah, Phillips, people who believe that they should have a choice with their own bodies aren't Satan, they just happen to think differently than you. And again, where are the sources to such a serious accusation? I'm not sure that this could even be called “defensive” anymore, but rather conservative paranoia. No one cares about Sarah Palin's choice to keep her baby. The great defiance that leftists are leading is an opposition to Palin's POLITICAL campaign concerning this. It seems like a pretty weak sales pitch for Sarah Palin to make the variety of her options very public, but her campaign to advertise “Look at all the options that I had with my baby! If you elect me as your vice president, I'll be sure to make sure you don't have any of the same options.” This doesn't make liberals unmoral baby-eaters, but people who want to have choices for their bodies and their futures. A low blow for the conservative party.
Lastly, to further demonstrate Phillips' conservative bias, there are several points in which she cleverly hides her political beliefs in repetition of her favorite word. In the third paragraph, Phillips references social conservatives as “people who prefer truth over lies, right over wrong, morality over anarchy”. What is the truth? What is right? Apparently, “the right” is. In the rest of the article, Phillips references “the right” in quotations, as if to say that the right is right in their beliefs, that they are moral and always truthful. Again, this is NOT, right and wrong, it's politics. Finally, her political beliefs rear their ugly head in the last paragraph, “That is why her entire family is being turned over while the media is totally silent on the genuinely disturbing questions about Obama's connections and views.” One last time, to prove how “wrong” the “right” is: both sides always think they're right and can never be wrong. This is a repeating theme in any political jargon, in any race, at any time. Obama's views may be “genuinely disturbing” to those who disagree with them. The fact is, most people always think they're right and have their heads shoved so far up the behind of their own personal dogmas that they will never see the light of day. This makes neither reality of either side much more frightening than the other.
Note, MLA has not yet been incorporated.
2 comments:
Why do you think Phillips makes an *unconscious* effort. Why don't you think she is being deliberate?
You write:
Secondly, I find her points to be quite defensive, as well as incorrect.
Do you mean offensive instead of defensive?
If you listened to the debate, do you continue to have the same opinion of Palin as you did when you wrote this blog?
I'm not sure how to phrase this correctly. I think that her effort is conscious, in a sense; but what I mean is that it isn't intentional but rather, instinctual, based on her beliefs. I do mean offensive, yes. Lastly, absolutely, I do have the same opinion.
Post a Comment