»» Columnists

Why Are Sarah Palin and Her Death Panels Allowed On The WSJ Op-Ed Page?

by Glynnis MacNicol | 8:33 am, September 9th, 2009

» 11 comments

AP Stevens Indictment Sarah Palin has found a new home for her health care, death panel rantings: the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal! What exactly qualifies the former, sometime Governor of Alaska, and failed running mate for John McCain to speak on the issue of health care remains unclear (energy, was a bit more understandable). Certainly it’s a free country, and the Journal is allowed to publish whatever they like, but there isn’t there also a implicit understanding and trust on the WSJ reader’s part that the writer know what they are talking about?

Beyond the ability to manipulate the national message from her extremely popular Facebook page Sarah Palin has yet to prove she is credible enough to speak on this issue, in what is presumed to be one of the more credible forums out there. Does this mean the Wall St. Journal agrees that it’s factually accurate to suggest President Obama’s health care bill includes a death panel provision?

Then again, times are tough in newspaper land…maybe the Journal is not above succumbing to the siren call of clicks (or Rupe’s influence?). Actually, I suspect that’s exactly what happened. And this will get a lot of clicks. And it’s pretty clear that, despite Marc Ambinder‘s call to the MSM that they don’t allow Palin to become today’s voice of the GOP, considering the following “death panel” passage, that is exactly what is going to happen.

In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context.

barack obama, Death Panels, Facebook, Health Care Bill, Sarah Palin, wall street journal, Washington Post

http://the-w.com/ CRZ

Well, clearly *Mediaite* is not above succumbing to the siren call of clicks…
StewartIII

Palin Sticks to Her Guns in WSJ Op-Ed — Says ObamaCare Would Give Government ‘Life-and-Death Rationing Powers’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/09/09/palin-sticks-her-guns-wsj-op-ed-says-obamacare-would-give-government-life
Lurker

Let me guess? You didn’y vote McCain/Palin?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Jones/1384303476 Chris Jones

My guess is the WSJ is interested in providing its readers with useful information about an important issue currently facing our country. I know it hurts Obama’s message when the truth gets out, but that’s life.
sarainitaly

“Certainly it’s a free country, and the Journal is allowed to publish whatever they like, but there isn’t there also a implicit understanding and trust on the WSJ…”

Just a suggestion: you might want to proof read your article before you knock someone else on their credibility as a writer.

I was thinking about the school system the other day, and I think, by examining the (death panel) cuts in education, Palin was completely legit it bringing up the *death panel* discussion wrt education.

http://tinyurl.com/kluglr
http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-Callan/100000200979966 Joe Callan

There are plenty of legitimate problems with healthcare reform…but apparently the Palin-worshippers don’t understand that she’s not exactly the best person to be highlighting them.

Don’t we want an INTELLIGENT advocate talking about the flaws in Obama’s plans? Wouldn’t we prefer someone who hasn’t been spending the last year making herself a joke?

I can only ask “where are the REAL Republicans” so many times before I just give up and drop my party affiliation. I didn’t know my party was into stupidity worship, but I guess since 9/11 we just cling to whatever backwoods hick the majority of our party can best identify with. I clearly no longer belong.
sarainitaly

You mean like the intelligent democrats… the ones who have had months now to explain the plans to us, but can’t. the ones who haven’t read the bills because the can’t understand them? you mean like the ones who can’t understand turbo tax, and remember to pay taxes on their property?

Palin didn’t spend a year making herself a joke. The media spent the year turning a Governor with a high approval rating into a joke, while ignoring all the faults of Obama. From best I can tell, Palin was a real republican, until people decided she was a threat to Obama, and apparently not elite enough, and ripped her to shreds.

Backwoods hick? nice.

And btw, I am not a Palin worshiper, I just think it is bullsh*t how the media, and people treated her and her family.
TfT

Trashing Palin and the WSJ — oh what a way for the liberal media to react. Just because the word “death panel” and “rationing” aren’t in the bill, doesn’t mean the intent is not in the bill. Obama himself has told the old folks to go home and take the red pill (or was it the blue one) rather than have the surgery because they are too old to carry on. But, hey….that’s the spoken word of the One that Glynnis seems to want to ignore.

The joke is on the author of this article, not on Palin.

Give it a rest, the more you attack her, the more popular she becomes.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-Callan/100000200979966 Joe Callan

Sarainitaly:

“Backwoods hick” withdrawn. Totally out of line. I get prickly and sometimes the ad hominem comes out. I just can’t stand all this attention on Glenn Beck and Palin and how the conservatives are gathering around them like they’re heroes.

I agree with you on the healthcare issue–we haven’t heard word one about what the Dems policies are going to do, how they’re going to affect the private insurance industry (the left seems to forget that those are American jobs too), and what the plan is when China decides we’re no longer a good risk after dumping ANOTHER trillion dollars down the drain.

I guess I was just echoing Marc Ambender’s sentiments (though admittedly far less professionally) about Palin becoming the GOP mouthpiece.

Tft: “the more you attack her, the more popular she becomes.”

Is that what the GOP wants? Isn’t there ANYONE better? If not, then good luck in 2012. Of course, if the next three years go the way this first one has gone, luck won’t be an issue–the right will get the Oval Office back no matter WHO runs next time. (After all, that’s pretty much how Mr. Obama got into office, isn’t it?)
TfT

I have no clue who will run in 2012 — the left assumes Palin will — she might, then again she might not. It’s way to soon to be talking about 2012. Just because she speaks up on an issues, facebook or WSJ, doesn’t mean she is running for President….it means she has a position and wants to have her voice heard. Afterall, she was the first female republican VP candidate in history. That alone gives her some clout (at least with most folks, perhaps not the far lefties).

The bottom line is that she drives the left nuts….which means there is a certain fear regarding her power (for lack of a better term). She won the debate on health care — references to end of life situations were removed from the Senate bill. That drives the left berzerk.
ChrisNH

All newspapers have ‘chosen sides.’ First, let’s dispense with any feigned outrage that the WSJ has ‘chosen a side.’ Please. The NYT is the penultimate ‘side-chooser,’ and you will most certainly find columnists and opinion-makers who are ‘allowed on the reservation’ simply by virtue of what position they take rather than how ‘qualified’ they are. Should we dismiss the legions of ‘Hollywood Elites’ who have (somehow) managed to get their political viewpoints plastered across the pages of the NYT? Should they be similarly dismissed?