Palin guilty of abusing her power


by Leon
11th October, 2008 at 2:12 am    

Why am I not surprised?

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is guilty of abuse of power, according to a probe by the state legislature.

Mrs Palin was accused of sacking a senior state official, Walter Monegan, in connection with a family feud. She allegedly fired him for refusing to sack a state trooper who was in a bitter custody battle with her sister.

The verdict of the state legislature could have a significant effect on Republicans hopes of winning the US presidential election next month.

I should hope it does. It will be a sweet irony if Palin damages McCain’s campaign. Not that he’s likely to win now anyway. Barring an unexpected Obama gaffe/scandal or terrorist attack I expect we’ll be seeing the first Black President being elected in a few weeks time.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Election News,United States






59 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. digitalcntrl — on 11th October, 2008 at 2:58 am  

    Your right it probably makes little difference now. Another nail in McCain/Palin’s coffin. Just look at how desperate the rightwing rednecks are these days…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFDyalnTJbs

    and racist too…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE&feature=user

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVuBcJ7ijP8

  2. halima — on 11th October, 2008 at 4:24 am  

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&eurl=http://thepoorman.net/

    Couldn’t resist.. Sarah Palin’s greatest hits…

  3. halima — on 11th October, 2008 at 5:17 am  

    The first clip is from the Apocalypse Now/Heart of Darkness at the end when Kurz speaks his last words:

    “The horror! The horror!”

    One of my favourite quotes in the world.

  4. El Cid — on 11th October, 2008 at 10:10 am  

    Looks like Obama could win by a landslide too

  5. billericaydicky — on 11th October, 2008 at 10:18 am  

    I still want to know how Obama is black. I can never get anyone to answer this no matter how hard I have tried. Accordingy to OBV black is a political construct which means anyone who has “suffered because of the colour of their skin “!

    And then what is mixed race which is also sometimes used? OBV will claim that virtually everyone posting here is black, without consulting them of course. This seems to me to be a reversal of the deep South and South African one drop rule. One drop of none white blood and you were reclassified.

    I was always amused when, in the days of the loony left running the GLC, people who could be described as of “mediterranean appearance” would turn up to meetings calling themselves Uhuru Jihad or something similar and dressed up in African tribal robes. They were always exploring the ” Africanness” of themeselves. It was of course no good pointing out that some of these people were 90% white.

    Mala Sen tells a good story about this at the time of the Mangrove trial in 1971. What had happened was that there was a fight outside Notting Dale police station and a lot of people were arrested. One of them was a guy in the Black Panthers who used to call himself Jah Shaka. What a surprise when at the first court appearance the usher called out “Reginald Beccles”. Doesn’t have quite the same cachet somehow.

    So what is black, does anyone have an opinion?

  6. Laban — on 11th October, 2008 at 10:25 am  

    Obama is the child of an African (“black”) father and a white mother. He’s as white as he’s black.

    How about beige ?

  7. Laban — on 11th October, 2008 at 10:26 am  

    and what’s with the capitalisation of “Black” ? It’s not a title.

  8. Jai — on 11th October, 2008 at 10:44 am  

    So what is black, does anyone have an opinion?

    For various historical reasons, in American society a person with a black parent (ie. with ancestral roots in Africa) and a white parent is regarded as racially black.

    It’s correct that, technically, Obama is actually “mixed race”, but by that definition (again for historical reasons) so are huge numbers of the millions of black Americans whose ancestors have been there for several centuries, along with people from the Caribbean.

  9. digitalcntrl — on 11th October, 2008 at 10:47 am  

    “So what is black, does anyone have an opinion?”

    In the US the one drop rule applies. Having any black heritage means that you are black. They are even designations for being 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 black (e.g. quadroon, octoroon, etc.).

  10. Sid — on 11th October, 2008 at 11:36 am  

    Does that mean Sarah Palin is a bitch (soccer mom/pitbull hybrid)?

  11. El Cid — on 11th October, 2008 at 12:13 pm  

    Laban does have a point about the capital ‘B’!

  12. halima — on 11th October, 2008 at 12:40 pm  

    “I still want to know how Obama is black”

    He isn’t black in my opinion. Or white. But the default option for anyone who is mixed seems to be non-white. Here is perhaps a political problem of definition. As digitalcntrl points out above.

    Which kinda begs the question why is white identity so purist – that if anyone is mixed they always tend to be black and not white. If 50/50 we can claim either identity I guess.

    I discussed this many times with my friends in the past. They tend to say that the history of ‘race’ in the US is such that mixed race children need to assert their ‘black’ mixed identities more to counter-balance the dominant narrative that is about ‘whiteness’.

    Society is such that unless you assert your ‘black’ identity (s), you end up having historical and cultural amnesia about other influences on your life that isn’t mainstream white. Hmm.

    I don’t agree with this view, but am trying to figure it out still. Not because I don’t agree that self-defnition about identity and claiming blackness isn’t important politically.

    But because I have a problem with whiteness as a purist concept of race.

  13. halima — on 11th October, 2008 at 12:45 pm  

    “It’s correct that, technically, Obama is actually “mixed race”, but by that definition (again for historical reasons) so are huge numbers of the millions of black Americans whose ancestors have been there for several centuries, along with people from the Caribbean”

    I would go as far as to say many ‘white’ white Americans are also mixed in some way – America being the land of immigrants in modern times.

    The only settled/indiginous folks there are native americans perhaps – but even there, you can trace migration from other parts of the world, many moons ago.

    In the end black and white are quite unstable definitions – and it seems we only use them or stick to them for political definitions alone.

    Which is important sometimes, but not always. Depends on the struggles.

  14. Kulvinder — on 11th October, 2008 at 12:57 pm  

    So what is black, does anyone have an opinion?

    He selfidentifies as ‘black’, its his own sense of identity (and before you ask i wouldn’t have a problem with someone who is ‘white’ identifying as ‘black’ or ‘asian’ or whatever they want).

    Regarding the capitalisation of ‘b’ none of us have subs; i think the minor mistakes can be forgiven!

    Completely tangentially i watched the presidential debate on youtube (i haven’t cared about the election to date) and i have to say i was shocked at how poorly both mccain and obama answered questions. The questions themselves were practically ignored, they found it difficult to connect with the audience and started a pointless hissy fight over taxes.

    They may be able to deliver good speeches when they’ve been written for them but that art taking a question and connecting yourself to the person who asked the question as well as delivering the message of what you see as the problem and what you’d do differently seems to elude them.

    Regardless of what you think of Clinton he was amazing at that, as a comparison watch this question from the ’92 debate; Bush basically attempts to push the question aside and give a generic non-answer – as practically all politicans would, he then gets fuddled up when the woman asks him to answer the question.

    Clinton gets up, connects with her addresses the specific nature of the question (she wanted an emotional connection about how it affected the candidates) brings up what he saw happening as governor; then points out the mistakes of bush’s economic policies and rounds off by linking his economic vision back through the the points he’d raised.

    You may argue that he didn’t deliver on everything he promised but you have to admit the way he answered that was spectacular. The best bit is Bush’s face at 3.47; he knew he’d lost.

  15. Leon — on 11th October, 2008 at 4:07 pm  

    Please let’s not let billydicky derail this thread into another tedious race bitch.

    This thread is about Sarah Palin, all hail the demise of the GoP chances of getting the White House!!

  16. Ravi Naik — on 11th October, 2008 at 4:21 pm  

    and what’s with the capitalisation of “Black” ? It’s not a title

    It seems like some people like the capital B.

    Personally, it seems like one needs to make the distinction, as “black” refers to a concrete colour, whereas “Black” would refer to a race, where people’s skin colour varies from black to white (in case of African albinos).

    Why am I not surprised?

    Geez, Leon, it is not like you had a post on Sarah Palin where you started with McCain is smarter than he looks going by his choice for running mate. :) I was not better though, I said Obama should attack Palin, and he did and it backfired on him. But he quickly ignored her, and let SNL and the media expose her.

    The bottom line is that McCain has a mindset of a gambler. Sarah Palin was a gamble, much like going to Iraq without having concrete proof that there were WMDs. McCain only met Sarah Palin ONCE, and he decided she would be his running mate out of panic right after Obama’s speech in the last day of the convention. Palin is a creationist, anti-science, a pathological liar (this cannot be understated), and utterly clueless. This would be cute 8 years ago, but really, how arrogant can you be to attempt to pull this off this year?

    It is clear that Sarah Palin precipitated McCain’s downfall. I am no political strategist, but since McCain had already locked his base, shouldn’t he try to grab the moderates and independents? Instead, Sarah Palin just drove them away.

    The election is over. The only question now is whether Obama wins this confortably or by a landslide. I am rooting for the latter. This new reality is sinking in on the wingnuts, and their reaction has not be pretty. :)

  17. Leon — on 11th October, 2008 at 5:52 pm  

    Leon, it is not like you had a post on Sarah Palin where you started with McCain is smarter than he looks going by his choice for running mate.

    Yeah and that was written as a first reaction in the first twenty fours hours of the news breaking, over five weeks ago! I think you’ll find my views have shifted rather quickly away from that quite some time ago…;)

  18. Don — on 11th October, 2008 at 8:25 pm  

    Ravi,

    Totally agree. I’m starting to allow myself to be cautiously optimistic. The McCain/Palin combo seems to have nothing left but spitting bile, ignorance and lies.

  19. Katy Newton — on 11th October, 2008 at 10:20 pm  

    … deleting what I said because this is all too heavy for a Saturday night, frankly. I’m going to see if Merlin is on iPlayer :-)

  20. douglas clark — on 12th October, 2008 at 1:32 am  

    This is quite old, but it does need investigating by the full force of Alaskan Law. Or just laughed at, or something, no, really:

    http://www.steamthing.com/2008/08/did-sarah-palin.html

  21. digitalcntrl — on 12th October, 2008 at 3:03 am  

    @DON

    “Totally agree. I’m starting to allow myself to be cautiously optimistic. The McCain/Palin combo seems to have nothing left but spitting bile, ignorance and lies.”

    Don’t forget my friend in Palin’s case, sheer stupidity. And as it is Saturday night enjoy this SNL skit:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/27/tina-fey-as-sarah-palin-k_n_129956.html

    The vid is halfway down…

  22. Ravi Naik — on 12th October, 2008 at 10:52 am  

    Don’t forget my friend in Palin’s case, sheer stupidity.

    Stupidity, you will find, is subjective. The problem of Sarah Palin is that she follows the good Republican tradition (made into a speciality by Karl Rove) whereby you are qualified to run the country and solve all the complex problems that the country faces if you have the same knowledge and intellectual capabilities of Joe six-pack. Ignorance and anti-intellectualism are therefore qualities that people should look at when choosing the President, if one goes by what the Republicans offer.

    But what I find more troubling are the lies. Politicians lie – either through half-truths or through misdirection. Obama is not immune to this. But McCain/Palin have been damn liars. Pretty much everything that the McCain campaign has said about Palin have been fabrications insinuating the exact opposite of what her record shows.

  23. Ravi Naik — on 12th October, 2008 at 3:56 pm  

    Two videos: (1) just before the rally when the guy thought he was being filmed by a friendly cameraman, and (2) during the rally when the same guy spotted CBS filming him.

    Video 1
    Video 2

    I guess the little coward knew he was doing something wrong, uh?

  24. Suburban Tory — on 12th October, 2008 at 6:04 pm  

    Ravi

    Yep, there are nasty people out there. But wait here are some nice ‘progressive’ folks showing the utmost respect to their political opponents.

    Toodles.

  25. Don — on 12th October, 2008 at 6:30 pm  

    sub,

    That was even more pathetic than usual. Malkin revealing some photoshopped images from the net and discovering that some students threw ice cream and salad dressing at republican dignitaries?

    Could you try to make a substantial point once in a while? Snide drive-by comments and links to shoddy sites get tedious pretty quickly.

  26. Suburban Tory — on 12th October, 2008 at 7:09 pm  

    Don

    Sorry, if my latest post didn’t reach your exacting standards. All I was trying to show was that the hate goes both ways. I don’t think that’s a controversial point. Maybe you do.

    Oh, and I thought my last contributions to this site on the fake Dayton Mosque attack thread proved quite telling in the end.

  27. AmericanHayseed — on 12th October, 2008 at 7:17 pm  

    I wonder if after Obama wins, I can invite Palin out to dinner. She’s smoking hot.

  28. Don — on 12th October, 2008 at 7:32 pm  

    They’re not that exacting, but as usual it didn’t reach them.

    The point is the extent to which the candidates have shown themselves to be using and even orchestrating the kind of ignorance, bigotry and hate which is easy to find.

    It isn’t a case of ‘the hate goes both ways’. It’s disingenuous, at best, to imply that Malkin’s piece demonstrated an equivalence by Obama to the toxic level of debate descended to by McCain/Palin.

    proved quite telling …

    Yeah, in a way I suppose it did.

  29. The Common Humanist — on 12th October, 2008 at 7:37 pm  

    What price at the bookies do you think I could get for an effigy of Obama being burnt at a Pallin rally before the 4th?

    Funnily enough all the tories I know are for Obama. Most already were but Pallin was the last straw for the few holdouts.

    Every crossed for the 4th! Go Obama! Know Hope.

    TCH

  30. Ravi Naik — on 12th October, 2008 at 8:06 pm  

    Oh, and I thought my last contributions to this site on the fake Dayton Mosque attack thread proved quite telling in the end.

    The problem of that post, as many of us pointed out, is that there is no proof that there was a link between the DVD and the attack, and that we should wait to make a judgment until the investigation was over. I am glad that there was no hate crime.

    All I was trying to show was that the hate goes both ways.

    You need to try harder – there is no equivalence. This is not about a kid with lots of time to play around with photoshop, or to make practical jokes. You get that from both sides, and Michelle Malkin is all to happy to host the vitriol from the wingnuts.

    So what is all about? It is about what is happening in McCain and Palin rallies after the Republican ticket started the “Obama is friend of terrorists” theme. You can hear people in the audience shouting to McCain and Palin’s face that Obama is a “terrorist”, or “kill him”, “out with his head”, and both candidates said nothing for the first few days, instead they amplified the sentiment. Only when the media started to report how nasty his audience was, that McCain said something about it.

    I can’t imagine that sentiment in Obama’s rallies, or him allowing his audience to stoop to that level.

  31. Suburban Tory — on 12th October, 2008 at 8:08 pm  

    Don

    Pointing out Obama’s links to Bill Ayres, Tony Rezko, ACORN and Rev. Wright are exactly what an opposing candidate SHOULD be doing. How this is inciting hate is beyond me. Clearly, you want an election where the debate is only conducted on Sen. Obama’s terms.

    Examples of hate from the right must be pretty hard to find if Democratic Underground posters are claiming that Palin wearing white is somehow inciting the racist crowds. You don’t win arguments by just saying “I don’t agree with you. You must be a racist”. Or maybe you think you can.

    Yeah, in a way I suppose they did.

    What are you implying? I queried the whole premise of the article linking the alleged attack with Obsession and I was right.

  32. BenSix — on 12th October, 2008 at 8:20 pm  

    Pointing out Obama’s links to Bill Ayres, Tony Rezko, ACORN and Rev. Wright are exactly what an opposing candidate SHOULD be doing.

    I agree entirely: McCain’s polls have been falling ever since he started.

    I’m not particularly interested in hatred displayed towards either candidate, however, as it’ll only deter potential supporters.

  33. Ravi Naik — on 12th October, 2008 at 8:21 pm  

    Funnily enough all the tories I know are for Obama. Most already were but Pallin was the last straw for the few holdouts.

    Absolutely. And that’s because this US election is not about progressives vs conservatives, but between between moderates and fundamentalists. I am so glad that this time our side has a more talented political candidate who is proving to be a formidable strategist.
    Expect several books, movies and PhD thesis on how paved his way to the White House.

    He hasn’t won. But consider the odds. A Black guy with a funny name and Hussein as his middle name, with a Black Muslim father and an Indonesian step-father. He went on to defeat Clinton which had the vast backing of the Democrat party, and as of now he is kicking McCain’s and the Republican’s collective butt. There were times where it seemed it was over or became too nasty, yet this guy never lost his cool.

    I hate politics and politicians. But this guy is just inspirational.

  34. Ravi Naik — on 12th October, 2008 at 8:29 pm  

    Pointing out Obama’s links to Bill Ayres, Tony Rezko, ACORN and Rev. Wright are exactly what an opposing candidate SHOULD be doing. How this is inciting hate is beyond me.

    “Palling with terrorists?” Is that not inciting hate? Notice that McCain is known to have participated in a board with one known neo-nazi, and Sarah Palin has strong ties with an organisation that wants to secede from the US, which I believe is illegal to conspire against the federal government.

    Should Obama bring this up? Because he didn’t.

    I agree entirely: McCain’s polls have been falling ever since he started.

    And Obama’s have gone up.

  35. Suburban Tory — on 12th October, 2008 at 8:57 pm  

    Ravi

    Do you think that if Gov. Palin had launched her political career at the home of a former Ku Klux Klan terrorist that it wouldn’t be a subject of debate. Would it have been wrong for Sen. Obama to bring it up as a campaign topic? Of course not.

    The lady alleged to have called Obama a terrorist didn’t actually say that. Only one WaPo reporter heard someone shout “Kill him” and thinks that the man was talking not about Obama but Ayres – it is not audible on the video.

    The Dems have played the “Race Card” early even though the election is almost in the bag to shut down debate about Obama’s questionable past.

    The Republican base is angry at McCain for not attacking Obama harder and wants him to fight – not give up – that is what the anger at the rallies is all about.

    But don’t worry your guy is going to win – this time next year he will have brought peace to the Middle East, fed the hungry and healed the sick.

  36. BenSix — on 12th October, 2008 at 9:06 pm  

    “But don’t worry your guy is going to win – this time next year he will have brought peace to the Middle East, fed the hungry and healed the sick.”

    I’m sure that I’ve heard this song before. DJ, please…

  37. Suburban Tory — on 12th October, 2008 at 9:09 pm  

    Obama doesn’t have to talk about Palin at all. The media will do it all for him. The BBC are all over stories about Palin but ignore the stories of vote rigging being carried out in over ten states by operatives of the Obama linked ACORN organisation.

    Latest poll in Ohio has McCain back in the lead – this election is not over yet.

  38. Ravi Naik — on 12th October, 2008 at 9:23 pm  

    Do you think that if Gov. Palin had launched her political career at the home of a former Ku Klux Klan terrorist that it wouldn’t be a subject of debate. Would it have been wrong for Sen. Obama to bring it up as a campaign topic? Of course not.

    Obama’s political career was NOT launched at the home of Bill Ayers. He did work with Bill Ayers in an educational board which was hosted by a Republican ex-embassador and a friend of Ronald Reagan, and several other Republicans were also part of that board. But let me ask you, given that Bill Ayers is a professor in the University of Illinois, are all of his students … terrorist students who are barred from becoming President?

    Let’s talk about Sarah. Sarah’s husband was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party as late as 2002. Sarah Palin THIS YEAR addressed them in a video speech she prepared for their convention. And this party has some history.

    Now, let me ask you: should Obama bring this up? And a lot more facts about Sarah Palin, and the real story about John McCain?

    The Republican base is angry at McCain for not attacking Obama harder and wants him to fight – not give up – that is what the anger at the rallies is all about.

    I guess, as Ben was saying, we would all be happy if McCain continue to do what you and his angry mob suggested: keep smearing Obama stronger and stronger.

    But don’t worry your guy is going to win – this time next year he will have brought peace to the Middle East, fed the hungry and healed the sick.

    These days, I am more content to have someone who doesn’t make things worse, such as making preemptive wars against countries like Iran and North Korea… you know what I mean? :)

  39. Ravi Naik — on 12th October, 2008 at 9:26 pm  

    Latest poll in Ohio has McCain back in the lead – this election is not over yet.

    Which one?

    stories of vote rigging being carried out in over ten states by operatives of the Obama linked ACORN organisation.

    I understand you would like the story to be framed like that. But the fact is that there is no proof that Obama and his campaign are orchestrating vote registration fraud. In fact, there is no evidence that ACORN has such strategy. There are instances where “Mickey Mouse” was registered, but unless Mickey Mouse is voting, then there is no vote rigging.

  40. Ravi Naik — on 12th October, 2008 at 9:49 pm  

    This week, at one of those McCain events, and before McCain arrived, Pastor Arnold Conrad of the Grace Evangelical Free Church of Davenport gave this invocation that included: “…I would also pray, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god—whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah—that his opponent [Obama] wins, for a variety of reasons.

    And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day.”

    Let me repeat – this is part of a McCain event, where McCain appeared soon after to speak to his crowd for his Presidential campaign. It’s beyond parody.

  41. Suburban Tory — on 12th October, 2008 at 9:53 pm  

    Ravi

    Er, yes it was.

    In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn….

    “I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

    Unfortunately, for American students it’s quite difficult for them to gain an education without their Professor being a former sixties radical. US Academia is awash with them.

    Are you really equating the Alaskan Independence Party with the Weather Underground. Does that make the SNP like the IRA?

    The real story about John McCain – from Rolling Stone! Why not quote the NME?

    I’m not angry at Obama he will probably do a reasonable job although I think it might be a poisoned chalice with the economy as it is.

    Unfortunately, he has already threatened to invade Pakistan. So much for your hopes for peace.

  42. BenSix — on 12th October, 2008 at 10:30 pm  

    “The real story about John McCain – from Rolling Stone! Why not quote the NME?”

    Hehe, you’ve already linked to Michelle Malkin, SB, so I’m worried for the safety of this glasshouse.

    “So much for your hopes for peace.”

    Aye, and his “resurgent Al-Qaeda” nonsense. Still, McCain’s advisers alone told me all I needed to know about him. The *whooping cough* “intellect” behind Bush’s foreign policy and a mass murderer. Grrrreat.

  43. BenSix — on 12th October, 2008 at 10:40 pm  

    Incidentally, here’s McCain’s campaign manager and noted pigeon resembler Rick Davis.

    “The reality is there was absolutely no wrongdoing found in the report — 1,000 pages — an enormous waste of time — and the best they could come up with was: no violations of any kinds of laws or ethics rules.”

    O Rly?

  44. douglas clark — on 12th October, 2008 at 11:12 pm  

    Suburban Tory,

    So your not taking the bait on Sarah Palin then? You have certainly learned well from your Republican masters.

    The latest Ohio poll according to 538.com shows McCain 2 points ahead of Obama, within the M of E. Or statistical noise if you prefer. It’s a toss up state at the moment. According to Rasmussen.

    ACORN made the point to electoral registrars that an application for a vote was “a sloppy business” and that the electoral registrars had to ensure that they were satisfied with the legitimacy of the submitted forms. To be helpful, they sorted those that they themselves thought were suspicious from those they didn’t. Frankly, you are attacking the messenger. What is your solution to voter registration, huh? Leave it to the Republicans, who have a vested interest in supressing it?

    I’d expect Obama to give your febrile Ayers yarn the brush off it deserves.

    It is interesting that John McCain has wrapped himself in his military service – a la Kerry (?) – and it is frankly only likely that an outfit like Rolling Stone would have the cohones to publish what is, essentially a demolition of his military career. It does, however seem to be gaining quite a bit of traction, and the frankly amazing ability of the young Mr McCain to single handedly trash four of the US Navy’s planes is hardly a good indicator for a smooth and level presidential flightpath is it?

  45. Ravi Naik — on 12th October, 2008 at 11:13 pm  

    Er, yes it was.

    No. Nobody has disputed that Obama was in Ayers house where he met with several other liberals in the beginning of his political career. But he didn’t launch his political career in his house. The insinuation is subtle: that Ayers is somehow Obama’s political mentor, which is utter rubbish. And Obama addresses this idiotic innuendo here.

    Are you really equating the Alaskan Independence Party with the Weather Underground.

    No, I am certainly not. There is no equivalence. For starters, the Weather Underground ceased to exist 40 years ago, and the acts were committed when Obama was eight years old. There is no proof that Ayers is currently a terrorist, and is plotting to kill Americans. Obama has said those acts – blowing up empty government buildings – were despicable. Given that Ayers has currently good standing in Chicago, including with Republicans and academia – this whole thing is a sham, and you know it.

    Now, the Alaskan Independence Party still exists and its raison-d’etre is being profoundly anti-American to the point of them not wanting to be a part of the US, or in other words, Americans. In Palin’s video she talks about their good job and how important they are to Alaska. Isn’t that interesting that she is now running to be the potential leader of the Union? You still don’t think her connections are relevant? Uhm…

    Unfortunately, he has already threatened to invade Pakistan. So much for your hopes for peace.

    He has threatened to take tactic actions against Al Qaeda if Pakistan decides to ignore the problem. Has nothing to do with occupying Pakistan, or engaging into war with this country’s government. I guess you are smart enough to distinguish between one and the other, but yet you decide to conflate both.

    The real story about John McCain – from Rolling Stone! Why not quote the NME?

    Because Rolling Stone, unlike NME, covers in-depth political stories.

  46. Ravi Naik — on 12th October, 2008 at 11:17 pm  

    Hehe, you’ve already linked to Michelle Malkin, SB, so I’m worried for the safety of this glasshouse.

    Heh. :) Ben, you are on fire.

  47. Ravi Naik — on 12th October, 2008 at 11:40 pm  

    In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama…

    Incidentally, here is the story about Alice Palmer which is pretty interesting: Obama ran for State Senator when Alice Palmer decided to run for Congress in a 1995 special election, and he received her endorsement. After being defeated in the primary by Jesse Jackson Jr., Palmer returned to request that Obama drop out of the race and let her run again for the seat. Obama declined, and Palmer decided to run against him. Prior to the primary, Obama challenged the validity of ballot petition signatures for his opponents, resulting in their exclusion from the ballot and allowing him to run unopposed in the primary.

    So, not only did Obama not comply to Alice Palmer’s request to leave the race, but he managed to get her and others disqualified because they failed to meet the rules. No wonder, Alice Palmer went on to endorse Clinton in the Democratic primaries. So Obama is ruthless and likes to win, apparently by following the rules.

  48. Suburban Tory — on 12th October, 2008 at 11:49 pm  

    Everything about a candidate at election time is relevant including their personal life. I’m not denying that.

    It is the Democratic Party that is trying to close down any debate about their candidate. The hatred displayed by Obama supporters particularly towards Sarah Palin is clear to see. Read the comments at Huffington, Daily Kos, Democratic Underground – it goes way beyond acceptable boundaries.

    In my day the NME did cover politics – badly, just like Rolling Stone.

  49. douglas clark — on 13th October, 2008 at 12:28 am  

    Suburban Republican,

    You do write some drivel, don’t you?

    The hatred displayed by Obama supporters particularly towards Sarah Palin is clear to see.

    Err, no. It appears to be most of America that thinks Sarah Palin is an idiot.

    http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=27862

    Else, even Fox would have edited it out, now, wouldn’t they?

  50. douglas clark — on 13th October, 2008 at 12:35 am  
  51. Ravi Naik — on 13th October, 2008 at 12:42 am  

    Everything about a candidate at election time is relevant including their personal life. I’m not denying that. It is the Democratic Party that is trying to close down any debate about their candidate.

    That’s because the so-called “debate” is ridiculous. When McCain asks “Who is the real Obama?” or “What is his connection with Ayers?”… clearly he knows the answer, because it is public domain and has been debunked by the mainstream media since the Democrat primaries. The point is that Obama could play guilt by association game, because McCain has far more shady connections and pastors. But he won’t, and voters seem to appreciate that.

    The hatred displayed by Obama supporters particularly towards Sarah Palin is clear to see.

    Well, most people are distressed about Sarah Palin’s winning the election. But what do they know? Republicans, on the other, know what kind of leader the world needs right now!

    In my day the NME did cover politics – badly, just like Rolling Stone.

    What exactly do you object about this Rolling Stone article?

  52. douglas clark — on 13th October, 2008 at 1:30 am  

    Trailer Trash Republican, aka Suburban Tory,

    What are you trying to say here?

    Everything about a candidate at election time is relevant including their personal life. I’m not denying that.

    So, getting shot down over Viet Nam, firstly because he flew too low and secondly, if he had a moral bone in his body, because he shouldn’t have been there in the first place, makes him a sainted, but slightly fucked up bomber pilot? And an American icon?

    It is a miracle that there wasn’t someone on the ground to, oh, I don’t know, deny him his rights. Or kill him on the spot.

    Perhaps North Vietnam lacked an adequate anti missile shield of Republican lawyers. Primed to deny John McCain any sort of rights. But he survived that moment, didn’t he? No-one killed him, and frankly if you bomb me and you fall into my hands, well, I don’t know I’d be that generous.

    Unlike those in Guantanamo Bay, denied the protection of the Geneva Convention, unlike young Mr McCain.

    What a fucking hypocrite!

  53. Ravi Naik — on 13th October, 2008 at 1:38 am  

    What a fucking hypocrite!

    Well said it, Douglas.

  54. Suburban Tory — on 13th October, 2008 at 8:27 am  

    Dougie

    It doesn’t take long for you to resort to racial slurs. Classy.

    Even you must be repelled by some of the sexist, misogynistic drivel aimed at Palin. You don’t like her politics, fine, criticise her for that. Don’t call people stupid. It lowers the tone of the whole conversation.

    McCain WAS tortured in Vietnam in contravention of the Geneva Convention. I thought lefties were against torture. Bush didn’t fight in Vietnam you call him a draft dodger, McCain did you call him a war criminal. It seems GOP presidential candidates can’t win either way.

    This is what Rolling Stone wrote about McCain in 2000.

    The fact is that John McCain is a genuine hero of the only kind Vietnam now has to offer, a hero not because of what he did but because of what he suffered — voluntarily, for a Code. This gives him the moral authority both to utter lines about causes beyond self-interest and to expect us, even in this age of Spin and lawyerly cunning, to believe he means them.

    My things sure have changed in 8 years.

  55. Rumbold — on 13th October, 2008 at 9:08 am  

    I still admire John McCain, but I don’t think that I could vote for him now, because of Sarah Palin. Grrr.

  56. Sid — on 13th October, 2008 at 11:02 am  

    Given the long slow puncture of the Republican presideintial campaign, I don’t think even John McCain believes in John McCain anymore. It could be that McCain has taken a hard look at the hatred, racism, conspiracy theories and barely suppressed violence his campaign has unleashed and has stepped back.

    No? Ok, stop laughing you lot at the back…

  57. Ravi Naik — on 13th October, 2008 at 11:17 am  

    McCain WAS tortured in Vietnam in contravention of the Geneva Convention

    My things sure have changed in 8 years.

    That is true. Funny how he was all mavericky against torture because he endured it in the beginning of his captivity, and then this year – he decided against ban of waterboarding, and basically went along with Bush’s “enhanced” interrogation techniques. Yes, things have changed in the last 8 years, and his inclusion of Sarah Palin – who is utterly unqualified – is a testament of that.

    Though I *do* believe John McCain is a corrupted man since the beginning. He was one of the Keating 5, in which he successfully managed to stop an investigation of a guy who paid his vacation and offered him a lot of gifts – and which costed the tax payers billions of dollars because of that. And his campaign has been run almost exclusively by lobbies, many of whom were pay hefty sums to have access to McCain.

  58. Ravi Naik — on 13th October, 2008 at 11:26 am  

    So, I am not sure why people say they admire John McCain, either based on his personal life, or his politics. He was a bomber fighter, who was lousy and mediocre, having finished in the last 5 of 900 students. While in captivity, his wife had a car accident that left her less attractive in the eyes of McCain when he came back. He quickly had an affair with a rich beauty queen, and quickly divorced his 1st wife. And then went to receive gifts and bribes that led to this Keating 5 crisis. And in his presidency run, he decided to flip-flop on everything he said in 2000, and embraced the fundamentalists and their rhetoric.

  59. DR1001 — on 13th October, 2008 at 6:04 pm  

    It’s tanatamount to being something like a traitor or unpatriotic if you dare invoke any criticisms against MCCain here in the States from what ive seen in the media, so people feel obliged to admire him and suppress any comments outwardly.

    I agree that apart from the Republican base the general feeling here about Palin is that she just doesn’t know very much at all, seems ‘dangerous’ because of her views/policies which is very worrying seeing as McCain has had health issues. Also her unwillingness to open herself up to the media like the sunday shows(unless scripted or on Fox) to answer any questions just makes her seem shady and yet she is out there on the campaign trail asking the question ‘ who is Obama?!!’ to rile up crowds.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.