Okay, that was old news last Wednesday, but we thought you'd like to know the general story behind this "proof" that Governor Palin is so inexperienced that she can't write her own speeches. The mythology of America's Socialist Party and their MSM enablers is pretty easy to expose here. The game is called "emphasize an innocent truth so the perceived reality sounds really bad."
Governor Palin's acceptance speech was notable for the high quality of its content as well as for the Governor's superb delivery. But both were immediately under attack by the Dems and their MSM friends.
The primary point of attack was the Democrats' stunning revelation that Palin didn't actually write her speech--it was written for her. Imagine that!!
Problem is, no matter who the candidate, whatever speech is delivered is ALMOST ALWAYS WRITTEN BY A SPEECHWRITER. I oughta know, because I used to do this sort of thing as well in addition to writing science policy documents for two administrations. No modern politician has the time to write speeches. (Reagan was, at times, a notable exception.) What you do is bring in a professional speechwriter who sits down and interviews the speaker to find out the length requirements for the speech as well as the key points the speech is to address. The speechwriter then runs of to his or her cubbyhole, draws up an outline, does some quick research on the salient points, and comes up with a reasonably good draft, sending it to the speaker and/or his or her staffers for comment and markup.
In short order, the draft is Christmas-treed with red pen marks and the writer goes at it again. The review process happens again and there's usually a lot less red stuff at this point. Second revision is written and, in the best of all possible worlds, it's gone over again with the speaker before being finalized. Really conscientious speakers usually interpolate some favorite personal anecdotes, jokes, or policy points at this point.
In the end, the finalized speech is a product of many hands. The idea is for the speechwriter and staffers to do most of the work, freeing the speaker up for meet and greet and other political tasks. Speechwriting, like most writing, is tedious and incredibly time-consuming even for writers on tight deadlines. You can't take phone calls when you're in the middle of these things as it breaks your train of thought, and the average political speaker can't afford to closet him or herself for long periods of time. So others do the work. But a conscientious speaker will indeed provided plenty of input and won't sign off on the final product if it doesn't accurately articulate the ideas or policies the speaker's trying to push.
The above info applies almost universally whether the candidate is Republican or Democrat. Politicians are basically the public heads of largely invisible organizations united in their desire to push ideas, policies, or agendas. This is a fact of life and there's nothing wrong with this. One man or woman--particularly in the Office of the President--simply does not have the time to do everything that needs to be done. Even though a President of either party is always happy to get credit for all the good stuff. Indeed, the President HAS to get credit as his or her organization's public face. If not, the President likely won't win re-election and the entire team will be out of a job.
In short, criticizing Palin for "not writing her own speech" is bogus. Obama doesn't write his either. (Note: we're talking about formal speeches, not the extemp stuff for which the candidate must memorize crucial, carefully scripted talking points before speaking "off the cuff.") To criticize a politician for not writing his or her own speeches is, therefore, entirely bogus. I'm happy to criticize Obama, for example, on practically anything except for not writing his own speeches. He doesn't. And criticizing him for it would be just as bogus as criticizing Palin for the same thing. The Democrats who criticize Palin for having her speech written by another pointedly avoid mentioning that Obama does the same thing, thus creating for the unwary the notion that Palin is a lightweight. Again, this is an example of telling the truth but eliminating the whole truth (i.e., Obama does it too), thus rendering the partial truth into a lie that implies Palin is a lightweight.
Two other aspects of the Democrat-MSM criticism of Palin's speech are less important but also worthy of note. First of all, having out-ed Palin for having a speechwriter, Dem critics also emphasize that the speechwriter was a BUSH SPEECHWRITER. You will notice during the remainder of this campaign that the Dems will always insert the name "Bush" into any criticism they have of the Republican candidates. Their ideological assumption is that everyone hates Bush (decidedly not true and never true). So if they tirelessly connect the McCain-Palin ticket to Bush, Bush-hatred will doom their candidacy, making the Dems' hoped-for clean sweep all the more likely. Again, this tactic is going to backfire, largely because the Dems have become so promiscuous in its use that the electorate has already tuned it out. Nonetheless, look for "Bush this" and "Bush that" to be relentlessly flogged in the coming weeks by the Dems whether or not there's any connection with McCain or not.
Finally, note that the content of Palin's speech was universally condemned by the Dems, the pundits, and pretty much all the MSM lackeys as "sarcastic," "nasty," and, of course, "mean-spirited." Any objective listener to Palin's speech, even if a Democrat or Independent (who are mostly Democrats, BTW), would clearly have perceived Palin's criticisms as light, irreverent, or funny. Right down to her cute little nose-scrunching when she delievered her punch lines. Palin's zingers were telling. They were the truth. And they were indeed funny, unless you are a devoted Obama worshiper. But, sports fans, politics is a contact sport. If you can't whack your opponent for his point of view and for his policies, then there's really no way you can distinguish on politician from another
Key here is that Palin's "sarcastic" attacks were not the kind of ad hominem attacks regularly used by Dems to describe Republican candidates personally. They were attacks on experience ("community organizer"--what's that?) and on the good old boys' club of the MSM, which, by their very lack of objectivity has made them a collective object of scorn and laughter nearly everywhere in the country except LA, NYC, DC, and in this case, Chicago Land.
Palin's zingers were delivered with sly wit, irreverence, and a disarming smile. They were very effective, frankly, which immediately alarmed the Dems and their MSM allies. Since the criticisms were valid, both the Dems and the media resorted in the end to their usual Stalinist trick--discredit the speaker. You'll note that Palin's criticisms were never rebutted. They were rarely mentioned. Instead, Palin herself was attacked. The Stalinist idea is to get away from an opponent's message entirely. Rather, drive the opponent's person into the ground. At which point, after drumming this in to the electorate loud enough and long enough, it becomes the perceived truth and no one any longer listens to the discredited politician's message.
This tactic is a sneaky way of repressing free speech, another topic for another day. But just like every other anti-Palin tactic hasn't worked, this one will backfire as well. Because Sarah Barracuda has proven she can fight back effectively. And America's Socialist Combine hadn't counted on this.