Heh. Bill Kristol:
Third: A special thank you to our friends in the liberal media establishment. Who knew they would come through so spectacularly? The ludicrous media feeding frenzy about the Palin family hyped interest in her speech, enabling her to win a huge audience [37 mil to Obama & McCain's 42 mil and Biden's 24 mil] for her smashing success Wednesday night at the convention. Indeed, it even renewed interest in McCain, who seems to have gotten still more viewers for his less smashing–but well-received–presentation the following evening.
The astounding (even to me, after all these years!) smugness and mean-spiritedness of so many in the media engendered not just interest in but sympathy for Palin. It allowed Palin to speak not just to conservatives but to the many Americans who are repulsed by the media’s prurient interest in and adolescent snickering about her family. It allowed the McCain-Palin ticket to become the populist standard-bearer against an Obama-Media ticket that has disdain for Middle America.
Bill also touches upon a point that has been the most angering and sickening part of the attacks:
For instance, what in the world can she be thinking when she refers to “Sarah Palin’s wreck of a home life”? The only “domestic irregularities” (to use Ms. Rosin’s loaded term) she cites are “two difficult pregnancies–Palin’s with a Down syndrome baby and now her unmarried teenage daughter’s.” The second of these is a situation that the young woman and her family seem to be dealing with appropriately by their own lights. “Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family,” the Palins said. But what is “irregular” about bringing to term a Down syndrome child? Is Rosin suggesting–without having the courage to say so–that Mrs. Palin should have aborted the baby? Is it upsetting to her to have a prominent woman choose not to do so?
Yes, let’s just do like Hitler and kill off those among us that are “sick, weak, deformed”. Hitler said:
The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.
The left’s reaction against Sarah Palin choosing to keep her Down’s Syndrome child instead of killing it is indicative of a long held belief of liberals. These leftist philosophies were actually Hitler’s inspiration for his policies.
While Obama has certainly not been involved in the attacks on Palin for not aborting her Down’s baby, he holds similar, but even more repugnant views:
Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
It’s one thing to have the untenable belief that until someone is born they aren’t a person, thus it’s all right to kill them. It’s quite another to believe that they should be killed after they are born.
Also see a breakdown of his reasons for opposing the bill.
