"Unnamed sources"
As the election came to its conclusion, in the waning days, "unnamed McCain campaign members" began leaking information to the press that Sarah Plain was hurting the campaign for a variety of reasons. After last night's defeat, the "unnamed sources" crawled out from under their collective rocks again blaming Palin for the defeat. In my view, even if true, it is dispicable for these people to take shots at Palin in anonymity.
For years, no decades, we have seen the press using unnamed insider sources to feed political stories. Notwithstanding the news media's need to "protect" their sources, I find this contemptible. If an insider is trying to reveal information about corruption, that is one thing-though I would still come right out and use my name if it were a disclosure of corruption. But this is merely a matter of personalities, pointing the finger of blame and revenge. In this case, this is nothing more than a couple of sore losers trying to get the message out that it was "Palin's f---in' fault.
To me, it is a matter of principle. If you want to take a shot at someone, don't do it anonymously. Put your name under it if you want credibility. Besides, what were these sources trying to protect-their next campaign job?
Years ago, during my DEA career, someone in our office wrote an anonymous letter to DEA HQs regarding alleged mismanagement by our bosses. One day in the office, I overheard a passing exchange between one of the managers and one of our agents (who the manager suspected might have written the letter). When the boss, asked, "You didn't write that letter did you?", the agent replied, "I sign all my letters."
That has been a lesson that has guided me ever since. It is why whenever I write a blog essay or send in a comment to another blog, I always sign my name.
Those "unnamed sources" from the McCain campaign are cowards.
1 comment:
Hey, it's politics. There is nothing new under the sun.
Post a Comment