I'm surprised Sarah Palin's troopergate scandal hasn't gotten much attention. I guess the news cycle is too focused on the economy right now. Or maybe the media feels like it would just be piling on at this point.
Palin had a strange response to the report though. Basically, she is telling people that it doesn't say, what it, in fact, says:
I thought for reports like this, the strategy is to merely acknowledge as little as you can and move on. This strategy of denying what it says seems risky, but I guess if people aren't paying attention to it, it doesn't much matter.
I doubt it will get much play in the debate tonight either, unless the moderator asks a question about it. We'll see.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Troopergate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I'm pleased that at least the commentator was angry about Palin's bald-faced lying about this. Facts are stubborn things, but in the current financial tsunami, this will probably be drowned out. I marvel at how Palin is relentless and cheerful in her constant repetition of "I'm happy to be cleared" when the report did no such thing. Sometimes I feel like we like in a world of Orwell squared.
You want to talk about lying? Let's talk about how Obama lies about his association with William Ayers. What about his childhood mentor who was a communist? Oh, you don't know his name? Try Frank Marshall Davis, a communist and sexist. Obama only refers to him as "Frank" in his memoir. Speaking of his memoir, did he really even write it? Reads strangely similar to the writings published by William Ayers. And that Obama can write so well and articulately when he had not even had a career as a writer.
Let's talk about lying.
That someone who was the editor of the Harvard Law Review should end up being a terrific writer shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
I'm curious at the attempt in the comment to turn away from the issue of Palin lying so directly and obviously. But that seems the strategy, doesn't it? Deny and redirect.
She lied, anyone can see that. And I will give you that Obama's terrific ability to write is due to his experience as editor of the Harvard Law Review. Please address the issue of your candidate being closely linked with the aforementioned associations. Or will we just continue to "deny and redirect"?
Obama has already answered the Ayers smears. If you think this Frank person will play a big role in an Obama administration, then it's up to you to prove it.
Guilt by association is pretty meaningless. Obama has always shown a willingness to talk with anyone, liberal or conservative.
Even McCain seems to think this is a good thing, with his "willingness to talk across the aisle."
What's wrong with being a communist? I mean, really? This is America right? We're supposed to have the freedom to believe what we want, whether its personal, political or religous in nature.
Are you referring to his vague explanations of his ties to a known terrorist? He has hardly addressed his thinking for associating himself Ayers. What of Jeremiah Wright? Do we need to go there as well? All I have to say is 20 years.
What I'm saying is this: If I were to find out today that one of my associates is an unrepenting abortion clinic bomber (me being anti-abortion) I would disassociate myself with this individual immediately.
As far as Frank goes, what is a mentor to do but shape the way a young person sees the world? He has a tremendous part in his administration.
As to your "Guilt by association is pretty meaningless" all I have to say is: Birds of a feather...
He's totally explained his association with Ayers, and if you can't see that, then nothing will satisfy you.
Obviously, you are looking for reasons to dislike Obama. That's fine as far as it goes. But it would be nice if you could find actual policies or actions to criticize, rather making up shady associations, which could apply to everyone.
True. We do have freedom to believe what we want. The foundation of this country was established to offer us such. But those foundations were established on everything that is not communism.
For a president to be of a communistic persuasion would bring peril to our established freedom based on the Constitution.
Is this to "deny" or "redirect"?
I am talking about the root character of this man. All of his policies and actions flow from that.
"The root character of this man"?
Don't deny or redirect, you meant the 'Roots'character of this man, as in Alex Haley's film.
Huh? Are you actually going to stoop in this direction? You've got to be kidding me. This conversation is over.
As this conversation was going nowhere, that's probably a good thing.
But if you are truly looking for his root character, you might judge it by his policies and actions, rather than associations based on innuendo and smears. That's probably what Jesus would do.
Post a Comment