A Sept. 15 Newsmax article by Jim Meyers portrayed anyone who told the truth about Sarah Palin or pointed out her thin records as “gang[ing] up” on her and “unleash[ing] new attacks.”
Meyers began by offering up a baseless correlation-equals-causation fallacy: “With the Republican ticket gaining in the polls, guests on the Sunday TV talk shows unleashed new attacks on GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, challenging her qualifications for office and her stand on earmarks.” Meyers, of course, has no evidence that the Sunday shows criticized Palin because she was doing well in polls, nor do we recall anyone at Newsmax admitting that their criticism of Obama was based on Obama was “gaining in the polls.”
Meyers also fails to acknowledge any of the criticism of Palin he quotes in his article — such as that Palin “has taken more in federal earmarks per person than any governor in the history of the planet” and that “There are serious questions about the stand that Palin has taken on the ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ which she’s always supported” — as being factual, instead dismissing it as coming from “Obama surrogate[s].”