"Sarah Palin attacked the President of the United States on foreign soil. Wasn't it considered treasonous by conservatives when liberals attacked Chimpy McBushHitler when, thanks only to a stolen election, he got into the White House?"It's already up on one moonbat blog. Watch it spread like cancer on steroids across the nutroots today. But there's a major problem with the argument. The New York Times quoted Melvin Goodé, a regional marketing consultant, who was in the audience for Sarah Palin's address in Hong Kong Wednesday morning:
Mr. Goodé, an African-American who said he did some campaign polling for President Obama, said Mrs. Palin mentioned President Obama three times on Wednesday.Contrast former Governor Palin's relatively mild dissent in Hong Kong with former President Jimmy Carter, who while in Columbia told an interviewer that the Bush administration "could have been involved" in the 2002 coup attempt against Venezuelan wanna-be dictator Hugo Chavez. Or with Al Gore, who in a speech in Saudi Arabia, criticized what he called "abuses" committed by the U.S. government against Arabs after the 9/11 attacks.
“And there was nothing derogatory in it, no sleight of hand, and believe me, I was listening for that,” he said, adding that Mrs. Palin referred to Mr. Obama as “our president,” with the emphasis on “our.”
Mr. Goodé, a New Yorker who said he would never vote for Mrs. Palin, said she acquitted herself well.
“They really prepared her well,” he said. “She was articulate and she held her own. I give her credit. They’ve tried to categorize her as not being bright. She’s bright.”
Sarah Palin's remarks had neither the venom nor the moonbat conspiracy component of the Carter and Gore remarks, both of which were made in countries where they would engender hate and anger towards Bush. It's not really comparing apples to oranges. It's more like comparing apples to poison apples with razor blades hidden in them.
So much for DNC talking points.
- JP
