Senator Mark Begich’s personal smear-rhetoric was handled beautifully by Governor Palin. She reminded Alaskans that he’s voted 90% in-line with Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid.
But when you’re talking to pointless PBS experts like Mark Shields or David Brooks, actual objective and substantive facts are no match for stale talking points and blatant lies.
Shields said that Governor Palin "quit halfway through her term" and David Brooks claims that "she’s just never showed interest in governing" despite the fact that she spent almost two decades in public service.
When I hear things like this, I think of Governor Palin’s words about the good old boys and their accompanying faith in government. Notice how Mark Shields cannot defend Begich on his record. Then, even worse, notice how David Brooks ignores the failed-Democrat Senator’s record entirely for the purposes of trying to undermine Governor Palin. Brooks could have taken the time to remind viewers that liberals like Begich have no choice but to attack proven reformers like Governor Palin in personal and skewed ways when they can’t win the argument politically. Someone might want to remind Brooks that Alaska’s Senate seat is important to Republicans as they seek to shift the balance of power in 2014.
But does Brooks really have a problem with politics as usual? Does he care about the many times Begich voted along with Obama to grow government, pass mandates, and raise taxes?
What exactly does it mean to govern in the eyes of David Brooks? Scratching backs with the good old boys? Doing what is expected by the politicos? If Governor Palin was the type of politician responsible for our debt nearing $17 Trillion; and she pointlessly sat around in one political seat despite the damage it was causing her constituents by a small radical group of political opponents who constantly abused a loophole found in Alaska Ethics Act, would he have more respect for her?
Despite the facts surrounding her resignation that Shields and Brooks ignore, her accomplishments greatly outweigh any time frame she could have sat there going along with the status quo, just like Mark Begich seems content on doing.
I would advise David Brooks to read about her accomplishments here.
Further, Mark Shields goes on to imply she wouldn’t win in a potential Senate run:
It seems unlikely to me that she would walk away from that [job at FOX News] with all the restrictions on outside earning with a Senate seat if she would win, which I think is unlikely.
I suppose that depends on which opinion poll you’re referring to. If it’s an average poll conducted by PPP or the Huffington Post, I can understand that. But we know that pretty recently, Palin led both Mead and Miller in the primary among voters according to a Harper Polling poll.
As for her facing Begich in a general matchup, we must consider that Alaska is solidly a red state where voters enraged at Obama clearly voted against him by double digits in 2012. Once Begich’s go-along-with-Obama record is pounded into the voters by the right candidate capable of articulating it, he’ll be history.
Second, Begich barely won the seat in 2008 by 3,900 votes, even after his Republican opponent (Ted Stevens) had convictions of corruption under his belt. (Those convictions went on to be voided and the indictment on Stevens was dismissed after the election).
Somehow though, it’s not surprising that two people paid by the government-funded PBS seem to oppose proven reformers like Governor Palin on the basis of STALE talking points that pale in comparison to Begich’s record which will be fully exposed next year right before he’s sent home.
Thankfully, the rhetorical effectiveness of good old boys like Mark Shields and David Brooks seems to be shrinking almost as quickly as their influence is.