Sliming Palin

« Return to Article

Discuss

  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/10/2008 6:57:15 PM

    Citizen1955, you want to talk about being a puppet of big business, lets talk about Obama. And let's get specific. You gave no examples to support your claims about Palin/McCain, but here are a couple to support mine. Obama gave foreign companies 12 million in tax breaks. Obama voted for FISA - why? Because it gave the communications industries he gets so much financial support from retroactive immunity for violating their customers' civil and constitutional rights. Obama took money from companies and then turned around and recommended they be given grants -- like the one to Killerspin when he was a state senator, and the earmarks he has requested for his financial backers and political cronies, and even his wife's employer. Obama supported a Walmart tool in a Chicago campaign, and in return Michelle was put on a board of directors which she only resigned from when he decided to run for POTUS (and he was the one accusing HRC of ties to walmart). Obama took money in the Rezko fraud. Obama represented Rezko's "non-profit" community organizations in the failed housing developments that Rezko got most of his money from, and then got a sweet deal on his house with Rezko's help.

    The list is a lot longer, and anyone who really wants to know can find the facts for themselves. But I doubt you are interested in facts, just name calling.

  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/10/2008 6:30:27 PM

    Funny that Newsweak is trying to appear more balanced by posting this article while at the same time posting another article with a highly misleading headline that makes it look like a judge gave Palin a warning that she ignored when complaining about her ex-brother-in-law.

    The only person the judge was warning was Palin's sister, not Palin.

    Palin wasn't under the judge's jurisdiction, she wasn't a party to the case, and he couldn't order her to do anything.

    And in case you all missed it, in his interview on CNN, the trooper admitted to tasering the boy, to drinking on the job, and to shooting the moose illegally.

    He should have been fired.

  • Posted By: newz4i @ 09/10/2008 6:11:26 PM

    Imagine Palin looking into Vladimir Putin''s eyes and saying, "Excuse me a minute, this barracuda needs to check her lipstick."

  • Posted By: Citizen1955 @ 09/10/2008 6:07:55 PM

    To any reasonable, i.e. left of Neo-con spectrum voter Gov Palin oozes slime; the Karl Rovian kind that was used on John McCain himself back in 2000 in South Carolina.

    8 years of Bush the big-oil puppet and now this twisted fairy tale called Palin being pushed on the American People?

    Newsweek better get on the real issues or at least focus on an outright lie like the "no thanks.. for the Bridge to nowhere" mantra or the internet will, despite it's potential for abuse, do it for them!

  • Posted By: Goheidigo @ 09/10/2008 6:07:30 PM

    Palin initially requested Emmons' resignation, along with those of Wasilla's other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along but said she didn't feel she "Palin initially requested Emmons' resignation, along with those of Wasilla's other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test ...", What?! Why didn't she just play a game of "Truth of Dare" to see if they would keep their jobs. Palin is a scary character! I want a woman in the White House so badly, but she'd set us back over 100 years! The other side isn't much better, but it's not worse.

  • Posted By: lokijoey @ 09/10/2008 5:38:41 PM

    I am surprised that a mainstream news organization has produced such a report. The reference to "sliming" invites extreme reactions from both sides of the political spectrum. It incites passions and attracts attention, but inhibits thoughtful communication. I'm glad to get specifics about what Ms. Palin did and did not do and say, but it appears that much was left out that appears to be accurate criticism of Ms. Palin: 1) She misrepresents herself as opposing the "bridge to nowhere." She supported it until it became a national political liability - only then did she oppose it, and ultimately took the money and put it to other uses in Alaska. 2) She criticizes earmarks, yet she actuvely sought and received 26 million in earmarks for her town of 9,000. 3) Apparently her husband WAS, for a number of years, and up until 2002, a member of the party advocating secession, and she apparently DID make an appearance at the party's convention. Just imagine the hay the Republicans would make of that if the Democratic party nominee were in the same position.

    Moreover, Republicans have made numerous misleading statements o "spin" Ms.Palin's image, that should be challenged by anyone attempting to determine her qualification for offfice. Republicans cite her being the head of Alaska's National Guard as a major military and foreigh policy qualification. Yet once the National Guard is called to service in a war, it is not under her command, but under the U.S. military. Republicans spin her qualifications by calling Alaska the largest state in the union - it should be fair criticism to point out that there are only about 650,000 people in Alaska - one of the smallest state populations in the US, and comparable to many cities in the country.

    The "sliming" reference is misleading. Other than bloggers going off half cocked (that happens all the time, and comes from both the right and the left - witness unfounded claims that Obama is a muslim), the mainstream press has been pretty moderate, especially compared to the swift boating of Kerry, and to the years of muck raking that have dogged Hillary Clinton. The right really has no standing to label Ms. Palin's treatment as "attacks" and "sliming" until they are willing to clearly and consistently disavow the massive, multi-million dollar smear campaigns they have conducted against Kerry, Hillary, Max Cleeland, and, yes, John McCain himself.

    Can we calm down, ease off on the inflamatory rhetoric, and take an extensive, dispassionate look at Ms. Palin's record and qualifications for the office that is a heart beat away from the presidency of the most powerful nation in the history of the world?

    • Posted By: Jose52 @ 09/10/2008 6:02:07 PM

      Now you are complaining about a fact-check and stating that something is wrong. The Gallup poll states that McCain is leading 48% to 43%; so start compaining about these polls. Check your facts about obambi and his accomphishments. Complain about his thin resume. He is your illusion.

  • Posted By: USAgirl @ 09/10/2008 5:41:11 PM

    The Democrats don't really have a platform for change either - they just like to talk about it. It's all vote-mongering. The Dems are playing the race card, why shouldn't the Republicans play a gender card? If you look, really look at John McCain, he is more liberal than most Republicans want as their representative. For him to pick Palin as a running mate is not off-key at all. For you to suggest that the Palin family is using their daughter's pregnancy as an advantage is insulting and ignorant. Shame on you. Also, I'd like to ask: are you on welfare or other assistance? Because if you aren't, you are helping to pay for it. If the Dems get elected you will pay more and more for it. Do you want to be taxed and taxed and taxed for the socialized (yes, socialism is what it is) healthcare? Any program the government runs becomes rife with bureacracy and corruption - do we want our healthcare in that category? Talk about the destruction of the middle class!

  • Posted By: beyond_paleoliths @ 09/10/2008 5:36:08 PM

    This is a shameless attempt to whitewash egregious abuses by Governor Palin whose husband is a member of AIP. Governor Palin has attended AIP events and only joined the Republican Party to be able to advance in politics. She attempted to fire the Wasilla Librarian because the librarian refused to ban books at her request, and there was an effort from Wasilla citizens to keep the librarian in her job.

  • Posted By: beyond_paleoliths @ 09/10/2008 5:32:50 PM

    This is an attempt to whitewash Palin's egregious abuses! Her husband is a member of AIP, she attended events and supported their mission (until nominated for VP, presumably), and she tried to fire the Wasilla librarian because she would not ban books from the library! The librarian kept her job because the citizens of Wasilla threatened to recall Palin if she fired her.

    Im

  • Posted By: elyhim @ 09/10/2008 5:20:54 PM

    errr Palin did speak at the AIP convention right? So she was a Leiberman type supporter?

    Joe isn't a Republican but he is supporting one and spoke at their convention.

  • Posted By: amtravel @ 09/10/2008 2:11:18 PM

    Speaking of education what about the statement that John MC Cain want to abolish the
    department of education. We will be back in the dark ages when only the rich can afford
    college and have a first class ecucation from pre K through highschool.

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/10/2008 5:20:11 PM

      Obama's speech on education was wholly unrealistic. While it would be great to see whiteboards in every classroom and a desktop computer at every desk, our country can't afford it right now -- we owe too much money to foreign creditors and can't accept the security risk that presents. We have to pay that debt down first. That is far more important than giving our kids new computers every year. And there would be significant replacement costs every year. Kids just don't take care of things.



      Nationally, there were 36.4 million children ages 5-13, and 16.8 million age 14 to 18. That's 53.2 million computers and 20 million white boards. Laptops that will run power point (which was what he said he wanted kids doing) cost more than $500 each, and whiteboards cost $800 to $29400 each. That's another 42.6 BILLION over and above what he's proposing in tax rebates and healthcare and energy credits, and doesn't even count the $40,000 a year Obama is promising all of these kids for college when they get old enough. Where do you think the money will be coming from?

      Grade school and high school education is and should be a local issue, and is highly dependent more on parental involvement than on the amount of money spent or the equipment a child has to take home. How many schools do not have computers now? Even if each child does not have his own, there is access to computers to learn not only how to do power point presentations but keyboarding, and these skills are taught to students beginning in kindergarten on classroom computers which kids share.

      Obama needs to quit making unrealistic promises.

    • Posted By: wouldulikecheesewithyourwhine @ 09/10/2008 2:20:55 PM

      What about it? What has the department of education done for our public schools? Do you have kids in school over the past 8 years? NCLB is some of the worst legislature EVER, so maybe McCain is on to something here....when/where did he make that statement about the DE? I'd like to follow up on this. Thanks!

  • Posted By: NJPoliticalJunkie @ 09/10/2008 5:20:07 PM

    This is ridiculous. This "factcheck" actually proves the opposite of what it says. Palin did not try to ban books, she merely asked "what if?" Give me a break? She has no business even asking such a thing. That in itself if inappropriate. And, newsflash... wearing a candidate's button IS an endorsement. Get real! Also, the Alaska Independence Party asserts that she was a member. Palin has denied it. But that does not settle the question.

  • Posted By: lokijoey @ 09/10/2008 5:19:48 PM

    I am surprised that a mainstream news organization has produced such a report. The reference to "sliming" invites extreme reactions from both sides of the political spectrum. It incites passions and attracts attention, but inhibits thoughtful communication. I'm glad to get specifics about what Ms. Palin did and did not do and say, but it appears that much was left out that appears to be accurate criticism of Ms. Palin: 1) She misrepresents herself as opposing the "bridge to nowhere." She supported it until it became a national political liability - only then did she oppose it, and ultimately took the money and put it to other uses in Alaska. 2) She criticizes earmarks, yet she actuvely sought and received 26 million in earmarks for her town of 9,000. 3) Apparently her husband WAS, for a number of years, and up until 2002, a member of the party advocating secession, and she apparently DID make an appearance at the party's convention. Just imagine the hay the Republicans would make of that if the Democratic party nominee were in the same position.

    Moreover, Republicans have made numerous misleading statements o "spin" Ms.Palin's image, that should be challenged by anyone attempting to determine her qualification for offfice. Republicans cite her being the head of Alaska's National Guard as a major military and foreigh policy qualification. Yet once the National Guard is called to service in a war, it is not under her command, but under the U.S. military. Republicans spin her qualifications by calling Alaska the largest state in the union - it should be fair criticism to point out that there are only about 650,000 people in Alaska - one of the smallest state populations in the US, and comparable to many cities in the country.

    The "sliming" reference is misleading. Other than bloggers going off half cocked (that happens all the time, and comes from both the right and the left - witness unfounded claims that Obama is a muslim), the mainstream press has been pretty moderate, especially compared to the swift boating of Kerry, and to the years of muck raking that have dogged Hillary Clinton. The right really has no standing to label Ms. Palin's treatment as "attacks" and "sliming" until they are willing to clearly and consistently disavow the massive, multi-million dollar smear campaigns they have conducted against Kerry, Hillary, Max Cleeland, and, yes, John McCain himself.

    Can we calm down, ease off on the inflamatory rhetoric, and take an extensive, dispassionate look at Ms. Palin's record and qualifications for the office that is a heart beat away from the presidency of the most powerful nation in the history of the world?

  • Posted By: smilyjoe @ 09/10/2008 5:04:38 PM

    i have no respect for a women who trots her 17 year old, unmarried, pregnant daughter out on the world stage for all to see- that child has enough issues- she needs to protect her privacy-not announce her engagement

  • Posted By: mapsguy1955 @ 09/10/2008 2:45:21 PM

    I'm not sure about this... There is exaggeration on both sides of the fence. But for someone to say they don't believe in evolution is just plain stupid. Regardless of whether some of these points are real or made up,look at all of the things made up about Obama, this VP candidate is NOT someone who should be one breath away from running the country. Her beliefs are way to far right to be balanced. This is just plain scary. The Republicans have put us so close to being a third world country. If you want to see just where we are, look at the USSR and see what happens when your country uses tactics like the right has employed over the last 30 years. The difference is that after they hit the bottom, they still had oil. We have nothing except a ton of idiots who live with their heads in the ground.

    • Posted By: A2008 @ 09/10/2008 3:49:24 PM

      See, right there you just made my point about liberals. If we don't believe on your ideas like the idea of evolution, then you attack that person because they dare to think independently and reject your evolution theory! As far as the Russia comment, they do have oil and that is a good thing, then why can't we drill our own and become self dependent. So you can think the Democrats for that.

      • Posted By: ELLENMILTON @ 09/10/2008 4:33:48 PM

        As a conserative I take issue with you on saying the Democrats stopped us from drilling for oil in the USA. It was a two party decision. Both of the Pres. Bushs were trying to please their Saudi friends and the Dem have been too afraid of the "green" people .

        • Posted By: A2008 @ 09/10/2008 4:56:42 PM

          How is drilling in Alaska going to please the Saudis? When Bush proposed to drill in Alaska to become independent from foreign oil, how is that to please the Saudis. Voting against drilling will please the Saudis. Are you sure you are a conservative?

  • Posted By: cindot @ 09/10/2008 12:12:59 PM

    I'd like to know if Palin ever supported the sex education in the schools, or any social program that is available to teens? I know that we should not talk about that area since her daughter is expecting at the age of 17. We are trying to educate and have programs to prevent teen pregenacy's in America. Why are spending money on education to prevent if the candidate for VP (Palin) obviously has not stressed this issue within her family. I find that pretty odd.
    Is it okay for our daughter's to practice sex without proctection? Did she not educate her daughter about diseases that can ruin her life? This is a real issue for me to understand.
    I feel disappointed in her.

    • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 09/10/2008 4:54:02 PM

      Have you ever had a 17-year old daughter? Don't assume Sarah Palin didn't discuss birth control just because her daughter is pregnant - kids have minds of their own.

      Leave Sarah Palin's parenting alone. She has enough other problems with her credibility and her extreme views to fill a gymnasium - let's talk about those.

  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/10/2008 4:52:36 PM

    Sure, Palin is pro-life, even in the case of rape, and opposes same-sex marriage and favors the discussion of creationism alongside evolution in schools. But she hasn't pushed for legislative changes in any of those areas.

    The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans."

    She even vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships because she said it was unconstitutional.

    That says plenty. It shows she knows the limits of government, and believes that government isn't there to tell us what to do.

    Obama seems more inclined to use government to control what choices we have than Palin does. Have you seen HR 800? The democrats are trying to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections. That will mean another hand in the worker's pocket (for dues, which have to be paid before the worker can even get the job), and less opportunity to advance on the merits when you do have a job.

    I bet all those small businesses our economy is so dependent on will be so happy to know that the democrats want to unionize every business in the country. That will definitely make their products and services more competitive with foreign competition.

  • Posted By: A2008 @ 09/10/2008 2:20:26 PM

    fiber artist
    Evolution is not "science". Evolution is a "could be" an uncertainty just like atheist claims there is no GOD. I believe science just be stated in facts, just like the color of a maple leaf is green, that is a fact. Evolution is not a fact. My tax dollars shouldn't be wasted on something on a school teaching my kids unproven science or try to cram junk into them. You want to know why the kids are so low compared to the rest of the world. It's because public schools are no longer teaching them what they should, instead they theach about contraceptives and the pill and left wing crap.

    • Posted By: flucky @ 09/10/2008 2:45:42 PM

      The THEORY of Evolution IS science. It is an analytical response to scientific query and examination. There is also the Big Bang THEORY, the THEORY of Relativity, and so on. Being a theory doesn't make it not true. On the flip side, calling Creationism a theory doesn't make it fact in the face of countless contradictions.

      • Posted By: neocon @ 09/10/2008 4:49:40 PM

        You voided your whole arguement with your last line.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 09/10/2008 2:50:01 PM

      Most science is not based on facts, but on theories. Yes, it is a fact that a Maple leaf is green, but it is a theory on why it is green. Like it is a fact that when an apple drops from a tree, it falls to earth, but it is the THEORY of gravity that causes it.

  • Posted By: tjones1942 @ 09/10/2008 4:36:17 PM

    Why hasn't anyone asked about Sarah Palin's education? She lacks a quality education. She went to 6 schools over a 6 year period and ended up with a BA in Journalism from the University of Idaho.

  • Posted By: aingeal @ 09/10/2008 4:29:06 PM

    Palin is a BIG FAT RED HERRING. That's all she is. Well, that and a liar. The republicans don't have any kind of platform for change. So they draft the first female they can lay hands on in order to divert attention. I'm sure it was a PLUS that her teenage daughter is pregnant because that gives the press something else to talk about to drown out the BILLIONS OF AMERICANS who want to discuss the ISSUES -- Like two wars no one wants. Like the fact that our economy is dying. Like the destruction of the middle class. Like the hungry and homeless and elderly who need a SOLID Social Security system. LIke Universal Healthcare. The things that matter to this country. The media need to do their jobs. And their jobs should be serving the public good. They need to stop this pandering to the gossipmongers. This is not Entertainment Tonight. This is our COUNTRY at stake.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse