BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: SharonA
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 09:32 AM

Rig: He's not my Keith Olbermann.

Just scanned the Vanity Fair article by Todd Purdum entitled "It Came from Wasilla" -- is that the one of which you speak? I didn't see anything "slimy" in it. On the contrary, it's pretty insightful and sums up the problem with Palin well. Please quote the part you think is slimy.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 10:05 AM

Sharon, here's a hot tip since you have not been around here much. Rig has a long record for completely senseless badminton. (Most of us just ignore it.) No one with any sense will confuse a lack of "defending" yourself from his posts with you being, in any way, wrong.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 10:12 AM

The main stream media gave Palin a pass on her husband Todd's 7 year membership in a secessionist party. It would not have even been exposed so much as it is now in the CBS report, except that her emails showed that she tried to get the McCain campaign to lie about it.

Sarah is her own worst enemy. She keeps stirring the pot and the results are negative for her. She tries to get people to label Letterman as a pedophile because he made a bad joke. She complains about bloggers who have the right of freedom of speech to express their point of view. Now she looks like a kid pouting on the playground, picking up her jacks and going home.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 11:10 AM

By the way, "law enforcement" does not necessarily mean just the FBI, as in 'law enforcement here in Alaska yesterday afternoon regarding Palin "a criminal indictment is pending authorization."' We just have to wait and see what comes to light.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 11:11 AM

Also depends on who you call a left-wing candidate.   During the 2008 campaign, a flyer was sent out with the cover something along the lines of "Sympathy for Terrorists!"   And a big picture of Obama on the inside. Then there are the chants of "Barack Hussein Obama" and emphasis on the second name by various people at pro-McCain/Palin rallies.

I suppose this is just fine with Mr. Rig.

But any other observer would easily see this is at least as slimy as what has happened to good old Sarah.

Unless of course they are blissfully ignorant of how propaganda works.

And what about Sarah's insistence in various speeches that her opposition were not "real Americans"? Also just fine with Mr. Rig?


That comes under the heading of slime, I'd say. And typical Bushite smears.


But anybody who says "all" Murdoch's organs are totally unreliable is also dead wrong.   Officially Murdoch "owns" the WSJ. But so far there has been no change in the reporting. I challenge anybody to find an unreliable article--NB:   the reporting, not the troglodyte editorial page.   For my money the WSJ still has the best reporting of any newspaper in the world--or at least is the equal of the best newspapers in accuracy of reporting. If anybody thinks there is a better one, let's have the name, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 11:25 AM

Here is what Karl Rove, Bush's master mind, had to say about Palin's resignation, from CNN:
-----

'He called her move unclear and therefore a potentially harmful strategy for a politician.

"Effective strategies in politics are ones that are so clear and obvious that people can grasp," Rove said. "It's not clear what she's doing and why."'

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 11:39 AM

From Maureen Dowd this morning:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05dowd.html?_r=1

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 11:41 AM

And if Mr. Rove, the master, bar none, of murky underhand tactics, can't understand Sarah's latest move, that really is saying something.

I understand some Republicans are annoyed at her because by this action she has made herself an automatic lame duck. And a quitter--with over a year to go in her term as governor.

Neither of which are seen as good qualities in a politician, for some reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 11:51 AM

"We say good for her, however, because it's been nearly a year since the first-term governor has acted like she actually wanted the job. Still unknown, however, is why Palin is calling it quits, though her press office has given numerous reasons for why she isn't. They say:

• It wasn't because Palin can't take the criticism that comes with being an elected official.

• It wasn't because she is planning to run for higher office.

"• It wasn't because of bad press and bloggers."

AK Capital City Editorial on Palin's Departure

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 11:58 AM

How about that?--Maureen agrees with me (3 July 2009 10:43 PM) that Sarah, at her last "press conference" was "burbling".

I wonder if she also might agree about "Governor Barbie".


But we still should not underestimate Sarah--just as it's not really a good idea to underestimate a cobra. (And a cobra is actually a bit different from William Faulkner, Rig).

Even though it's a constant struggle not to underestimate her.

In her own milieu--Right to Life gatherings, etc. she's still a superstar.

And she did get out the Neanderthal base for McCain in the 2008 election. Which he never could have done himself. They still called him "Juan McCain", for instance.

It was only the financial collapse--and McCain's pathetic response to it, in contrast to Obama's quiet confidence--which elected Obama.

Some think Sarah united the Hillary folks behind Obama, But I suspect they would have come out for Obama anyway on Election Day--the Supreme Court is just too important.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 12:40 PM

Judge Orders Probe of Attorneys in Stevens Case

Prosecutor Misconduct Alleged In Former Senator's Trial

By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 8, 2009

A federal judge focused scrutiny yesterday on a small Justice Department unit assigned to root out corruption when he dismissed the conviction of former senator Ted Stevens and appointed an outside lawyer to investigate allegations of misconduct by prosecutors.

The rare move to turn the investigation on the prosecutors themselves puts six federal lawyers, accused of mishandling evidence and witnesses, in the awkward position of becoming potential defendants in a criminal trial. It also creates a challenge for the Obama administration and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who must put a tainted prosecution behind him as he tries to remake the reputation of his department, which has been troubled in recent years.

The Justice Department would usually examine such accusations internally. But U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said yesterday that he has no faith in such an investigation after seeing so much "shocking and disturbing" behavior by the government.

"In 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I have seen in this case," he said.

The judge aimed his criticism at prosecutors from the Justice Department's public integrity section, which has faced a shortage of experienced prosecutors and other resources, and has drawn attention for not winning convictions in some cases.

Yesterday, Sullivan said he would appoint his own "prosecutor" to determine whether the six Justice Department lawyers should face criminal contempt charges. Convictions on such charges could lead to fines or jail time for the lawyers, who range from front-line prosecutors to the head of the public integrity section.

Last week, a new team of prosecutors asked Sullivan to dismiss Stevens's conviction and indictment after uncovering notes from previous prosecutors that contradicted testimony from a key government witness. Under court rules, the notes should have been turned over to defense attorneys before the trial, but Stevens's legal team did not receive copies until last month. Stevens was convicted in October.

Paul O'Brien, one of the new Justice lawyers, told Sullivan that "we deeply, deeply regret that this occurred." Laura Sweeney, a department spokeswoman, said officials will review Sullivan's order "and will continue to cooperate with the court on this matter."

Yesterday's court action was the latest twist in the troubled prosecution of Stevens, 85, a Republican from Alaska who narrowly lost his reelection bid eight days after he was convicted of seven counts of lying about $250,000 in gifts he received and free renovations to his Alaska house.

Stevens, who smiled before the hearing as he shook hands with the new prosecutors, told Sullivan that the Justice Department had "nearly destroyed" his faith in the legal system. "Their conduct had consequences for me that they will never realize and can never be reversed," he said.

During and after the trial, the judge reprimanded prosecutors several times for how they had handled evidence and witnesses. He chastised prosecutors for allowing a witness to leave town. He grew more agitated when he learned that prosecutors had introduced evidence they knew was inaccurate, and he scolded them for not turning over exculpatory material to the defense.

After the trial, an FBI agent came forward to complain about the conduct of prosecutors and another agent. And in February, Sullivan held three prosecutors in contempt for not complying with an order to produce documents connected to an investigation of the FBI agent's allegations. The judge said the most recent allegation linked to prosecutors' notes was "the most shocking and serious" so far.

Sullivan asked Holder to better train prosecutors in how to handle evidence and witness statements that may be helpful to defendants.

He identified those being investigated for potential contempt violations as four lawyers with the public integrity section: William Welch II, who heads the unit; Brenda Morris, the lead prosecutor on the Stevens case; Nicholas Marsh and Edward Sullivan; and two federal prosecutors from Alaska, Joseph W. Bottini and James Goeke.

To investigate the allegations, Sullivan appointed Henry F. Schuelke III, a former federal prosecutor who the judge said is known for his "fairness, integrity and sound judgment." Schuelke declined to comment.

Under Sullivan's order, Schuelke will review records and e-mail and will interview prosecutors, FBI agents and key witnesses. He will then recommend whether any prosecutors should be tried on charges of intentionally violating Sullivan's orders or rules on handling evidence. The judge could hold a trial in which Schuelke acts as the prosecutor.

Much of yesterday's hearing focused on what transpired during an interview on April 15, 2008, with the key witness, Bill Allen, a close friend of Stevens who is the former chief executive of Veco, a now-defunct oil services company.

During the interview, according to the notes taken by two prosecutors, Allen said he did not recall talking to a friend of Stevens about sending the senator a bill for work done on the house in Alaska, the judge and prosecutors have said.

Under oath at trial, however, Allen testified that the friend told him to ignore a note Stevens sent seeking a bill for the remodeling.

"Bill, don't worry about getting a bill" for Stevens, Allen said the friend told him. "Ted is just covering his [expletive]."

That testimony buttressed prosecutors' arguments that Stevens knew he was receiving gifts and was trying to create a paper trail. But defense attorneys have argued that Allen lied on the stand and that prosecutors allowed it to happen.

"It is clear from the evidence that the government engaged in intentional misconduct," Brendan Sullivan, Stevens's lead attorney, told the judge.


Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Art Thieme
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 01:07 PM

Yes, even a dead whale on a flatcar draws crowds.

And when built-up putrid gas pressure expands and bursts forth from the carcass, it doesn't mean that the thing actually blew a fart!

A.T.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 01:15 PM

pdq, I thought everyone was already familiar with this. I don't get your point.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 01:36 PM

"Just scanned the Vanity Fair article by Todd Purdum entitled "It Came from Wasilla" ...I didn't see anything "slimy" in it."

                   This passage pretty much sets the tone for the article. It seems slimy to me. Certainly not objective journalism, and the writer makes less attempt to tone down his own political biases than anything on Fox.

    "As Palin makes her way slowly across the crowded ballroom—dressed all in black; no red Naughty Monkey Double Dare pumps tonight—she is stopped every few inches by adoring fans. She passes the press pen, where at least eight television cameras and a passel of reporters and photographers are corralled, and spots a reporter for a local community newspaper getting ready to take a happy snap with his pocket camera. For a split second she stops, pauses, turns her head and shoulders just so, and smiles. She holds the pose until she's sure the man has his shot and then moves on. A few minutes later, the evening's nominal keynote speaker, the Republican Party's national chairman, Michael Steele, who has been reduced to a footnote in the proceedings, introduces the special guest speaker..."

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 02:22 PM

The modern version of Vanity Fair has nothing in common with the old one except the name.

The 1920 mag had Dorothy Parker, T. S. Eliot, Gertrude Stein, and Thomas Wolfe. Obviouly had class.

The new Vanity Fair started in 1983 and specializes in publishing nude fotos and accusing celebrities of alcohol and drug abuse. Sometimes worse things. Not much class.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 03:05 PM

PDQ, are you not one of the coterie who defends US torture of prisoners? If you defend that government misconduct, why do you not defend the prosecutorial misconduct that you allege - it is still the government trying to get the bad guys, and never mind the rules, isn't it? Or is it OK when your side do it and not when the other side do it?

Or do you condemn the torture?

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 03:43 PM

Speaking of deceased Cetaceans...

                                                                   there's one now

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 03:48 PM

If you don't like the article, Rig:

1)   What exactly in the excerpt you chose do you think is not true?

2)   Vanity Fair, as you might possibly be able to figure out from the title, does not purport to be an objective political journal--if there is such an animal. Also, any yahoo who wants to drop the names of Thomas Wolfe,   Dorothy Parker, etc. should be prepared to tell us how objective the articles by Dorothy Parker and Thomas Wolfe were.   It's even possible that both in the case of the earlier writers, and the current article, one of the goals was-- (gasp)-- entertainment.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 03:55 PM

That dead beached whale's name is Shara, some respect please.

For dead whales that is

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 04:51 PM

Of course I did not mean to say "any yahoo"; actually that should have read "any intellectual giant". Don't know how that mistake could have happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:19 PM

Also, anybody who knows anything about Dorothy Parker, for instance, would know she was left of center, to say the least.

And, if she wrote an article about the illustrious Sarah, would likely have been delighted to savage Palin far worse than the current article in question has done.   Particularly since Palin is such a fat juicy target.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: DougR
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:25 PM

I have never read in one space personal attacks on any single individual (and that takes in a lot of very bad folks) that holds a candle to the vicious attacks in this thread on Sarah Palin.

How many of you personally know Sarah Palin?
How many of you have experienced the verbal abuse she has endured simply because her views differ from yours?

Sick, sick, sick.

And most of you consider yourselves liberals. The definition of "liberal" taken from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (New Edition): 1. Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform. 2. Having, expressing, or following views or policies that favor the FREEDOM (my emphasis)of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing. Number five is: "Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others."

Yeah, right.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:59 PM

All very well Doug, but she attacks those very ideals. She appears to be a very nasty piece of work.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:59 PM

Ah, and PDQ, hello??

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 06:03 PM

Dougie... she's a fuckin airhead. Two clues and all. She doesn't even deserve the disrespect shown to her on this thread. She's beneath even that for her continued crap. She is disgusting.

But, she's one hot babe.... as long as she doesn't talk.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 06:17 PM

"Vanity Fair, as you might possibly be able to figure out from the title, does not purport to be an objective political journal..."

               A lot like the Wall Street Journal in that respect, what?

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Art Thieme
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 06:42 PM

If liberals are seen by some as being a bit over the top in their verbalizations concerning conservatives, it ought to be noticed that, as a country, we have endured way over a decade of character assassination from Limbaugh and Newt and so many others. In actuality, Bill Clinton endured the vitriolic personal assassination and impeachment because he had the temerity to say he didn't when he did.

Any extra polemics from liberals now is thoroughly understandable, and even acutely warranted--if not demanded!

Concervatives, your bellowing now in the light of this, your own history, is surely intolerable from the standpoint of those who withstood your non-fragrant belching you called freedom of speech. You did it just because you had the power then, and could do it----so you did.

Affectionately,

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 07:38 PM


I have never read in one space personal attacks on any single individual (and that takes in a lot of very bad folks) that holds a candle to the vicious attacks in this thread on Sarah Palin.

How many of you personally know Sarah Palin?
How many of you have experienced the verbal abuse she has endured simply because her views differ from yours?

Sick, sick, sick.

And most of you consider yourselves liberals. The definition of "liberal" taken from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (New Edition): 1. Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform. 2. Having, expressing, or following views or policies that favor the FREEDOM (my emphasis)of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing. Number five is: "Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others."

Yeah, right.

DougR


She's my Governor, Doug, (at least for three more weeks). She appeared to be a fairly decent if roughhewn Alaskan right up until August 29 2008. And especially when in the midst of the Republican Convention with her 'aw, shucks' pitbull and lipstick persona (which was a pure persona, I'm sure you'll agree) she allowed herself to become part of a Republican attack machine which could have become another incarnation of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth".

So you'll probably not be surprised with my non-acceptance of your argument. I think she was a figurehead of a most definite political attack which was ad hominem, flirted with the politics of fear ("pallin' around with terrorists") and prejudicial ("the real America") And she brought with her her own jeering section. Family Values parading with unwed daughter-mother. So just where was the unfairness?

I think when you come down to the political facts of life, she was treated with more fairness than John Kerry, and she brought herself down more than any other character.

I personally harbor no severe feelings toward her other than some gratitude. Her selection by John McCain and her performance in front ofthe general public did the Obama campaign a lot of good.

Unfortunately, her national performance has made it harder for her o govern in Alaska since her eventual return. Maybe that's what she's trying to say in so few words as we've had directly from her.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 08:25 PM

"If liberals are seen by some as being a bit over the top in their verbalizations concerning conservatives, it ought to be noticed that, as a country, we have endured way over a decade of character assassination from Limbaugh and Newt and so many others."


                   That's true, but the country endured 40 years of liberal media bashing conservatives on the air before conservatives were on the air because the "Fairness Doctrine" kept them off.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 08:31 PM

Doug-

Let's just go over one of her rationales for quitting (paraphrasing): that she doesn't won't to be a lame duck squandering the people's money like all the other lame ducks do.

I'm sorry but I know that some lame ducks believe in finishing the job they were elected to do without taking advantage of the position they were elected to. She implies that all lame ducks would take foreign trips, wine and dine their friends, and do little else. Maybe that's what she would actually do and, if so, she's doing the voters a public service by quitting.

I don't have a thing to say about her family, her religion or her physical characteristics. It's her warped point of view that I am critical of, her thinking process, and some of her history.

As a principled person, I would think that you would agree with my negative assessment of Palin, and even be able to expand upon it.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 08:31 PM

People are rude and unkind about political opponents, and that's how the game is played. I can't see that Sarah Palin has been treated any worse than many another.

It'd be better if political discourse was carried on more of the time according to the advice of English politician Tony Benn: "Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Don't make personal attacks. Listen respectfully. Encourage people."

Of course Tony Benn is a socialist rather than a liberal. Unfortunately by no means all socialists see it that way, any more than many liberals or conservatives.

Anyway I'm pleased to see that in the light of the second part of that definition Doug shared with us, it's evidently OK now to refer to him as being "liberal", and that the word is no longer to be seen as an insult.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 08:36 PM

DougR: "I have never read in one space personal attacks on any single individual (and that takes in a lot of very bad folks) that holds a candle to the vicious attacks in this thread on Sarah Palin."

Since this is a lazy Sunday afternoon I had the time - and interest - to check out DougR's perception of our "vicious" attacks on Sarah Palin. Here, except for the segues which defend her, are the MOST negative of our comments, Doug. I suspect you wouldn't have any difficulty in measuring them against Palin's character assassination (unAmerican, palling around with terrorists, just for starters) It is not a case of winning by a nose. Sarah and her ilk win by a landslide.

1.She senses blood in the water.
2.she rambles on and on and on with incomplete sentences (it's like fingernails on a chalk board)
3.In other words, she's getting out while the getting's good. Guess she finally realized that the R's are out of infatuation with her.
4.She writes stories for them by just opening her mouth. The latest revelations about her disastrous part in the campaign and Todd's awkward past may have told her "it's time"
5.The woman is an idiot.
Segue: "like fingernails on a chalk board>" Strange. That's exactly what happens when I hear Obama. DougR
6.But even her supporters are saying that this is "just bizarre" to do this now.
7.She is, indeed, an idiot.
Segue: Doug, Obama is well spoken, well educated, graduated from Harvard school of law and he taught constitutional law, and you would rather listen to that clueless airhead.
8.Maybe she just wants to be a mom.
9 ya know... clueless... airhead... poorly educated... poor debater... poor speaker... I'll stop there… Of course, I wouldn't want to have to talk to her.
10.most Alaskans see this as a petulant move
11.alaska's loss is alaska's gain.
12.She sounded really emotional at the press conference.
13.Maybe someone found some nude photos of her and is going to release them to the press. .
14.He suspects that she has done something horrendous enough that she doesn't want to be governor when it comes out.
15.She ain't going nowhere's... p.s. BTW, I'm sure Hugh Heffner is on the phone tonight...
16. those who have been follwing the Alaska blogosphere closely are aware of the rumors bubbling up that there's something big
17.I think she's changing jobs.
18.Maybe Rush Limbaugh has decided to retire and needed a replacement.
19.Until then she'll rake in the big bucks doing speeches before her adoring fans..
20.She's numb enough without making up stupid remarks to lay on her.
21.I suspect there are family problems...
22.Or maybe Sarah was enticed by the bright lights of big-time politics, and took up with a Congressman from...
23.Word on the street is that Ms. Sarah is carryin' Michael Jackson's baby...
24."...lay on her...", Capt'n??? Little Freudian slip showin' there???
25.Rumor has it the truth about their home that was built using materials from the hockey center (that she put Wasilla in debt with) will be coming to light.
26.An undisclosed source reported on MSNBC that she is scheduled into Bartlett Regional Hospital under her former name of Mittsy Jagov for a rectal resizing surgery.
27.I will not stand idly by and hear my beloved Sarah Palin maligned in that fashion. I'm callin' you out, man...
28.I heard her burbling on about how she will "pass the ball and get the victory" or some strained analogy of that sort and I could think of nothing but "Governor Barbie".
29.However, it's hard to avoid underestimating her
30.How much do you want to bet that the party told her the time was up?
31.some are speculating that she wants to step down to devote more time gearing up to run for the White House in 2012,
32.Maybe she's gonna write books and be the next Ann Coulter or go on the rubber-chicken circuit as a public speaker or become a rich lobbyist for the oil or turkey industries?
33.She's resigning before the real s*** hits the fan: "Here's a quote I got from law enforcement here in Alaska yesterday afternoon regarding Palin "a criminal indictment is pending authorization."
34."The sun is going down on her home town, just like they say a good thing never lasts"
35.Sarah Palin is a beautiful woman, and makes great eye contact and speaks clearly. People shouldn't confuse that outward communication with intellect or ability, yet her core group of admirers apparently do just that.
36.I disagree that she's beautiful. Calculation in her eyes--they speak volumes. And her remarks make her close to ugly, imo
37.she's a wonderful source of entertainment to us on the right-hand side of the Atlantic!
38.if this is the thread everyone wants I'll join ya. Ya betcha.)
39.Sarah still believes that drivel about those who don't support her being un-American, and the drivel about Armageddon, and the drivel about abstinence as the solution to teenage pregnancy and... And the Neanderthals who supported her in 2008 are ready to do so again. ..
40.Palin was, is now, and ever shall be an idiot.
41.A criminal indictment of Palin is pending authorization in Alaska - Palin actually looked anxious and worried in her statement, and soon we will know why.
42.If even a forth of this stuff is true, she's gonna get her ass reamed but good!   
43.Somehow, it seems that it's pointless for amateurs to attempt to demean Ms. Palin--she does a thoroughly professional job of it herself.
44.One gets the feeling that this is a troubled woman.
45.I've found her painful to listen to for some time. She colors her phrasing with religious imagery as if she's addressing a Sunday school service with lots of kids in the congregation. And the logic of her statements is fleeting. The worst part about it is that it is hard to dismiss the notion that she believes what she says.
She's sorta reminiscent of Ronald Reagon only without the intellectualism.
46.I don't see Palin as "Reaganesque" at all.
47.The kind of woman who gives bedbugs a run for their money.
48.I think of her as Bush in drag.
Segue: This from the AP:
   "...Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein:
"To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as 'fact' that Governor Palin resigned because she is 'under federal investigation' for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation," Van Flein said in a statement. "This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law."

Segue: Fighting these BS charges has cost her and her family 1/2 million dollars. She does not have that kind of money to spend. If she needs a contribution I will send what I can.
Segue: For better or worse, public figures, including politicians and political candidates, are generally exempt from the libel and scandal laws that apply to ordinary citizens. Just think of the allegations that were (and continue to be) hurled at the Clintons, the Obamas, etc. -- allegations ranging from corruption in office to insider trading to rape to murder.   

49.Glad she's gone. Hope she stays home!
Segue: The latest from the Los Angeles Times is this...Sarah Palin not under FBI investigation, agency spokesman says
50.Palin: "How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it's about country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make."

Huh? Who are these "countless others" who have resigned mid-term "for a higher calling" and not been criticized for that? I can't think of any.

51.that last quote from Palin above almost sounds like the sort of thing Nixon might have said.

52.the greater share of the costs that the State has incurred in investigating the ethics complaints resulted from her own lawsuit against herself in order to have the board that she herself appointed investigate the ethics; this was after the State had found her at fault. Her own board cleared her.

53.The main stream media gave Palin a pass on her husband Todd's 7 year membership in a secessionist party. It would not have even been exposed so much as it is now in the CBS report, except that her emails showed that she tried to get the McCain campaign to lie about it.

54.Sarah is her own worst enemy. She keeps stirring the pot and the results are negative for her. She tries to get people to label Letterman as a pedophile because he made a bad joke. She complains about bloggers who have the right of freedom of speech to express their point of view. Now she looks like a kid pouting on the playground, picking up her jacks and going home.

55.it's been nearly a year since the first-term governor has acted like she actually wanted the job.

56.Maureen agrees with me (3 July 2009 10:43 PM) that Sarah, at her last "press conference" was "burbling".

57.And, if she (Dorothy Parker) wrote an article about the illustrious Sarah, would likely have been delighted to savage Palin far worse than the current article in question has done.   Particularly since Palin is such a fat juicy target.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: curmudgeon
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 08:42 PM

"... but the country endured 40 years of liberal media bashing conservatives on the air before conservatives were on the air because the "Fairness Doctrine" kept them off."

This has to be the stupidest statement I've read since GWB left office.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 08:42 PM

"because the "Fairness Doctrine" kept them off."

WHAT???!! The fairness doctrine didn't keep conservatives off the air.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 08:45 PM

Rig, purposely or not, that has to be perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever heard.

The Fairness Doctrine forced media to make airtime available to each side of a controversial issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 08:53 PM

Wow, Ebbie, I'm impressed.

You did leave out where I responded to the denial about the FBI. If you look at all the denial press releases, they keep saying no FBI, but no one in the Alaska blogs I read said anything about the FBI.

---
By the way, "law enforcement" does not necessarily mean just the FBI, as in 'law enforcement here in Alaska yesterday afternoon regarding Palin "a criminal indictment is pending authorization."' We just have to wait and see what comes to light.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 08:58 PM

If the "fairness doctrine" kept conservatives off the air, what does that tell us about conservatives?

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 09:04 PM

Alice, I waffled about the FBI thing- I was looking for pithy one liners. Sorry. :)

Richard, I should have added that the Fairness Doctrine forced media to give EQUAL time to all sides. It was Reagan who abolished the rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 09:40 PM

What Happened to Fairness?

More on This Story:
History of the Fairness Doctrine

"You may remember hearing about Sinclair Broadcast Group in October 2004. They attracted attention from other media outlets when they announced plans to air STOLEN HONOR, described by some as an "anti-Kerry documentary." Ultimately, the documentary was not aired, as critics called for balance from Sinclair by way of programming that showed the other side of the story, calling on a principle called the "fairness doctrine." While this doctrine is no longer enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), it hasn't faded from public discourse. What is the history behind this doctrine?

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, called for stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates running for office. (Learn about the history of televised presidential debates.) The idea was to ensure even-handedness in a time when available frequencies were limited. This federal law did not apply to news programs, interviews, and documentaries. During the 1940s, stations were prevented by the FCC's "Mayflower Doctrine" from editorializing, but by the end of the decade, the ban had softened to allow editorializing only if other points of view were also aired to balance those of the station.

In 1949, the FCC adopted the fairness doctrine, a policy that viewed station licensees as "public trustees" and, as such, responsible for addressing controversial issues of public importance. The key requirement was that stations allowed opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on these issues.

Later, in 1967, two corollary doctrines were added. The first was the political editorial rule, requiring that if a station editorialized either for or against a candidate for public office, the station had to notify the disfavored candidate within 24 hours and allow him/her to reply to the editorial; the second was the personal attack rule, which states that when a person or group's character or integrity is impugned during the discussion of a controversial issue, the station must notify the person within one week, and offer a reasonable time for response.

By the 1980s, many stations saw the FCC rules as an unnecessary burden. Some journalists considered the fairness doctrine a violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press; they felt reporters should be able to make their own decisions about balancing stories. In order to avoid the requirement of presenting contrasting viewpoints, some journalists chose not to cover certain controversial issues at all. In addition, the political climate of the Reagan administration favored deregulation. When the fairness doctrine came before the courts in 1987, they decided that since the doctrine was not mandated by Congress, it did not have to be enforced. FCC suspended all but the two corollary doctrines at this time.

As this was happening, Congress passed a bill to make the fairness doctrine into law. However, President Reagan vetoed the legislation and there were insufficient votes to override the veto. In 2000, when the FCC failed to justify the two remaining corollary rules, the political editorial rule and the personal attack rule were repealed.

Efforts to resurrect the fairness doctrine have come up again and again before Congress, but no bill has yet been passed. Read a conversation between Bill Moyers and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter about her latest effort, The MEDIA Act.

For further research, visit our FCC and media deregulation resources."

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: DougR
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 10:09 PM

Wow, Ebbie, I'm impressed too! That took a lot of work.

It didn't change the way I see it though.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Sarah in the United States representing Alaska one of these days. That even could be the reason for her resignation I suppose.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 10:17 PM

You mean like Alaska sending her to the US as their ambassador or something?

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 10:32 PM

There's a cliché about people who've "failed their way to success". Perhaps Ms Palin wants to see if it's possible to skip the failure part and just quit her way to success.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 11:00 PM

Quitting seems to be a life pattern for her. She quit colleges and majors and skipped around to a lot of different schools before graduating. She quit her position as Wasilla mayor before her term was up. She quit her post on the oil and gas commission. Yup, seems like a pattern.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 11:13 PM

Here's the problem with the "Fairness Doctrine." 1. The reason people on the right listen to talk radio is because they work. They are in their cars either going to, or coming home from work when they listen to the programs. 2. People on the left do not listen to talk radio because they are at home on welfare. The media they are exposed to are sit-coms and sports casts on television. 3. If a media outlet had to present one hour of Rush Limbaugh and then one hour of somebody like Al Franken, the second hour would be simply dead air because nobody would be listening. That's why Air-America went broke so many times. 4. The sponsors would pull their ads from the second hour and the outlet would go broke. Nobody who works wants to hear that shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 11:42 PM

bobert beat me to it and I don't think the daddy is MJ, but I'll betcha she's preggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 11:59 PM

"because they work"..... oh, brother, as if we don't all work!
Give me a break. I listen to the radio while I work, too, and that doesn't mean it has to be Limbaugh. I know many construction laborers who listen to NPR on the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 01:09 AM

The broadcasts are normally during the morning and afternoon drives. I think that's why it works, they're trapped in their cars and frustrated. I don't think Rush Limbaugh would have ever gotten to first base if he hadn't come along about the same time it was popular to have a car phone--when cell phones came along it just made it that much better.

                So those are the ingrediants 1. commute 2. car phones 3. end of the "Fairness Doctrine."

                Somebody listening to the radio at work wouldn't have an impact unless they could call in, so they might as well listen to NPR. Besides, how many jobs are there where you can listen to the radio at work?

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: DougR
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 01:23 AM

Liberal talk radio hasn't been successful because there were not enough liberals tuning in. If the ratings had been there, advertisers would have signed on and talk radio would have survived.

Alice: So your point is, if elected president, she would quit before her term is completed? I would think you would rejoice at that possibility.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 01:38 AM

"Liberal talk radio hasn't been successful because there were not enough liberals tuning in."

             Exactly! They weren't stuck in traffic trying to get to work. They were either sitting in front of a television set counting their food stamps, or they were riding mass-transit.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 02:27 AM

Ha, I say. The reason that liberals don't listen to talk radio en bloc, en masse, in droves, is that liberals are much more independent and think for themselves much more and more carefully than do conservatives. Conservatives adore having someone else tell them what to think and what to do; they can't survive without it. If they could, they'd be liberals. :)