Thomas Friedman/NYT: wimpy, unintelligent smearer of Sarah Palin

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times offers "Palin's Kind of Patriotism" in which he sleazily questions Sarah Palin's patriotism (link). It starts out with this:

Criticizing Sarah Palin is truly shooting fish in a barrel. But given the huge attention she is getting, you can't just ignore what she has to say.

If someone said the same first sentence about BHO, the Huffington Post would go to red alert, and might even call the Secret Service.

But, Thomas L. Friedman is right about one thing: it's easy to criticize Palin, because she's disfavored by the establishment. Friedman is just a bullying toady who's piling on, picking on someone knowing that his patrons approve and he won't get any flak for it.

Continuing, with bolding added:

And there was one thing she said in the debate with Joe Biden that really sticks in my craw. It was when she turned to Biden and declared: "You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America, which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic." ...What an awful statement. Palin defended the government’s $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic.

1. She didn't say that those who pay taxes aren't patriotic. She was complaining about being required to pay higher taxes, and said that's not considered patriotic in "the middle class of America". Whether Tom Friedman doesn't understand the difference or thinks his readers won't notice his leap isn't known.

2. Thomas Freidman presents a false choice: there are other sources for the revenue mentioned, for instance, higher taxes for those above middle class.

3. Palin didn't make the decision to go into Iraq; if she had been president perhaps she would not have made that decision and thus those billions of dollars wouldn't have had to be spent.

Politics · Wed, 10/08/2008 - 11:08 · · Importance: 4