"I continue to be surprised at the vicious attacks on her. I've never seen anything like it"says John McCain on CNN.com. Of course that's not nearly true or credible and of course "viciousness" is not what distinguishes the many criticisms of Palin from the criticism McCain himself endured; criticism that he handed out and that he observed being handed out to people like John Kerry while standing by saying little or nothing. Indeed the hypocrisy of anyone in any way part of the Republican establishment of the last decade who is still crying about how poor Sarah has been treated is something the like of which I've never seen. What distinguishes complaints about her ethics with accusations that McCain sired an illegitimate, black daughter or that Barak Obama was born in Kenya and is a Marxist who wants to destroy the country, are the facts behind them -- or not behind them.
McCain and his party would very much like you to think that what really sours people like me on candidates like Palin are her daughter's pregnancy or some details of her private life that should be beyond public scrutiny. Indeed the campaign was complaining about such things far in advance of public awareness, making it apparent that they intended to make her an antihero and to run on sympathy rather than on any strong capabilities she might have. Of course any suggestion that anything in a candidate's life should be beyond scrutiny when made by a Republican is so hilarious as to be horrifying while there is ongoing hysteria about things that are not part of Obama's life being treated as controversial by people who know better.
That Palin lied about refusing earmarks, about being opposed to running up debt, is a small matter compared to the accusations of treason she smilingly made againstBarak Obama in her pedantic sing-song tones and nothing said against her suitability compares with Republican accusations against McCain made by the Bush camp. Of course complaining about criticism alone and without reference to the content and the facts of the matter constitutes deliberate misrepresentation. Is it vicious to accusePalin of ethical violations when there are legal proceedings based on formal accusations? Is it vicious to mention misstatements, to mention lifelong dedication to witch hunters and heretic persecutors or other things which are incontestably true?
If so, what then are accusations based on lies and distortions? If so what do we do with a candidate whose entire campaign was run upon such things while she whined about how unfair it was to criticize her at all?
It's rare enough for a governor, even a governor under indictment, to simply walk away from the job without explanation, yet Mr. McCain would like us all to believe that she was forced out by the nefarious and vicious Liberals who just can't stop asking why she did it. It's an insult to the electorate, of course, but no more of an insult than the McCain/Palin campaign was. They've been getting away with insulting and assaulting us for a long time -- because we're stupid, because we're emotionally and tribally driven and too often only informed by those who insult us.
That McCain is still playing the victim game; the poor, suffering and forgotten hero game, doesn't speak well for him. That he's still viciously attacking efforts to fix the problems his party created while offering no other suggestions than the same policies that caused them and the same policies that turned the crash of '29 into the Great Depression, doesn't recommend him either, but his misplaced loyalty that drives him to cover up for the VP candidate who may have cost him the election all by herself certainly suggests self-delusion, a total lack of independence and the kind of situational honesty that makes me so very glad he lost.
There is this report about a blogger threatened with a libel suit by Palin’s lawyers:
ReplyDelete"Nothing that I wrote in my post was meant to be malicious. I trust my source and simply reported what I had been told. Threatening to serve legal papers to an educator in a room full of five year olds? Now that is malicious."
Hmm, now she is forced to stay in a hapless marriage just to prove her critics wrong ... while playing another victim card from an empty deck. Raise or call?
As much of a nit-wit as she is, she and her lawyers know they have no case. That's why she was able to libel and slander her opponents with so little worry.
ReplyDeleteI gues we have to add "bully" to her resume'.
It's rare enough for a governor, even a governor under indictment, to simply walk away from the job without explanation
ReplyDeleteThe ethics charges, so far, have all been fake. One person filed 5 of them. I think that’s a bit much. From what I understand, there is some loop-hole in Alaska that these people are taking advantage of. If not for Palin’s sake, but for the sake of the state, that loop-hole needs to be corrected. Other people could suffer from bogus charges and that’s not right.
As far as her walking away from her job “without an explanation.” She gave a few news conferences explaining why she was “quitting.” And I say quitting, because even though I like Palin, I feel she quit. It has yet to be determined whether it will hurt or help her. I don’t know what I would’ve done if I were in her shoes, but I’d like to think, even with legal bills coming out of my wazoo, I’d stick it out and fulfill my term.
I am also disappointed in McCain. I don’t feel he came to Palin’s defense fast enough or strong enough. He’s the one who asked her to be his VP, so in theory, it’s partially his fault she was thrown into the national spotlight. He should’ve stuck up for her from the get-go. But I suppose when it comes to one’s political career, one must be very careful.(rolls eyes)
Pamela, not all ethics complaints appear to be motivated by politics. Although the Alaska legislature did not censor Palin over the trooper-gate affair, there was an official reprimand. The PAC matter appears to be a violation of political finance laws.
ReplyDeleteFor purposes of friendly discussion, lets accept your argument and concede that SP has been wrongly vilified. There remains one more nagging thought: Palin was the least qualified of all possible VP candidates, an opinion shared by pundits from the right including Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, and George Will, among others. In addition, the nomination triggered a defection of influential Republicans including Eisenhower’s granddaughter, Goldwater’s daughter, and Buckley’s son.
Suppose John McCain had nominated Hutchinson, Pawlenty, or Ridge instead of Palin? The GOP ticket might have been more “winnable” in 2008 … meaning more mainstream, less marginalized, and less beholding to an extremist fringe. Overall, MCain brought this upon himself and his party with no help whatsoever from our side of the isle.
In fact, our side lost something too … a viable two-party system capable of holding a serious discussion instead of the hardcore whack jobs that now dominate the GOP.
I'm no great admirer of the intelligence of the public, but I simply cannot understand why she does not appear as massively vapid, unintelligent, belligerent, unethical and dishonest as she appears to me. I look at her and I despair -- not because she's so dangerously imbalanced but because there is even one person who can't see that our salvation does not lie in embracing the folksy prejudices, evil superstitions and inadequate minds of people like Palin. If it did, we would all still be squatting in the mud picking lice like our hirsute ancestors.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone think she could pass a Junior college entry level economics course - a Jr. High School civics course? Why the hell would anyone bother to excuse anything she does when she can't describe the Vice Presidents job?
We averted a disaster as big as England did when they exiled Edward and yet we feel sorry for her. I'm just speechless with disgust.