Palin to resign as Alaska governor

[fossten]

Link

However, the strategy pursued by the Bush campaign, though its members deny knowledge of executing it, produced one of the ugliest episodes in American politics. Senator McCain’s campaign chief described the underhanded tactics faced in the South Carolina primary, “Anonymous opponents used ‘push polling’ to suggest that McCain’s Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child.” The same inaccurate claim was distributed on fliers, surreptitiously handed out by teenagers who were anonymously paid to do so.

Similar materials were distributed claiming that the Senator’s wife was a drug addict, that the decorated Vietnam veteran was a traitor, that McCain was a homosexual, or that he was mentally unstable. Bush staffers had established plausible deniability for the spurious materials; and, when the McCain camp attempted to fight back with television spots comparing Bush to Bill Clinton, the effort backfired. Frustrated, McCain pulled the commercials and prohibited his staff from further use of negative tactics, but it was too late. Bush won the February 19, 2000, contest by 11 points.​

You may slink...

McCain had to bear terrible accusations, regarding his sexuality, his patriotism, he had his wife and his children attacked, and yet, he continued on with public service. And he had to bear those labels by his 'own' side. He didn't quit partially through a term because the water got too hot.

:bsflag:

Editorials, fox, really? Tsk, tsk. You FAIL again.

You also have failed to show a valid comparison to the treatment of Palin's FAMILY, which is the more salient point in this discussion.

 

[foxpaws]

So the attacks on Palin are coming from 'straight' news Foss - and not editorial or 'comedy' writers? I don't get it - I don't think Brian Williams has been 'dishing' Bristol... Heck, shag did more to dish her than the 'straight' news has.

Editorial has attacked her family - along with comedians...

 

[shagdrum]

Are you placing a barometer on the amount of 'hurt' involved here shag?

No. That seems to be what you are trying to do.

I don't discuss PMs shag - I wouldn't profess to claim knowledge that I had only gleaned from a PM.

Convenient.

No one asked you to "profess" anything. You are only expected to be honest and discuss things in good faith. When you suggest something about someone that you know is not true, it is very dishonest; two-faced. There is no good faith in the discussion at that point and you make it abundantly clear to those who know better that you are ruthlessly opportunistic.

You have done this kind of thing a lot recently; tried to create a false stereotype that you know is not true due to information you have been given in the past in either PM's and/or out here in the forum.

I am not arguing that attacking her is a tactic to get her out of the way - it is the way the game is played - on both sides.

You are ignoring the massive difference in the degree the distortion/ disinformation was echoed in the media and the difference given in credibility to the distortion/disinformation in both cases. If you ignore the echo chamber effect of the MSM and how it effected things in both cases then you mischaracterize the issue. When you look at that effect then it is clear that you are comparing apples to oranges.

If anything, the MSM was on McCain's side at that time and was defensive of him (which is why many conservatives started viewing him as a MSM media darling), whereas the reverse was true in Palin's case and to a much greater degree.

So the attacks on Palin are coming from 'straight' news Foss - and not editorial or 'comedy' writers?

You are blatantly mischaracterizing here. again.

What you quote in regards to the Bush vs. McCain thing is not an "attack" but a summary of an "attack". So to compare it to attacks in editorial columns is to mischaracterize it.

Also, it was clear that fossten was saying that editorials were less then credible in this instance. Basically, it is nothing more then hearsay because there is not the level of fact checking that there is in a hard news story. They are not a real good source to site as "proof" of what you claim about Bush smearing McCain. There is no evidence linking those smears to Bush (only assertions based in nothing more then speculation), and it is simply assumed that those smears were the reason for McCain's loss in SC as opposed to his less then conservative positions in a conservative primary, including pushing tax hikes on tobacco which is SC's primary cash crop and being less then firm on tax cuts.

You can't ignore the fact that, at that time, the MSM was blatantly pushing McCain and working against Bush. Those biases made their way into the coverage of the primaries.

As to the claims about Palin I offered in post #38; most of them were covered by supposed "hard news" sources in the MSM when they were in fact wrong. And again, I could go into all the mischaracterization's and lies about her positions, her record and her political past. All of which were perpetuated by the MSM.

So, we have from you in this thread: willful two-faced, opportunistic attempts to create a false stereotype and mischaracterization. No good faith in this discussion anymore so no reason to keep wasting my time with you here.

 

[foxpaws]

Convenient.

No one asked you to "profess" anything. You are only expected to be honest and discuss things in good faith. When you suggest something about someone that you know is not true, it is very dishonest; two-faced. There is no good faith in the discussion at that point and you make it abundantly clear to those who know better that you are ruthlessly opportunistic.

You have done this kind of thing a lot recently; tried to create a false stereotype that you know is not true due to information you have been given in the past in either PM's and/or out here in the forum.

Shag not mentioning PMs on a public forum isn't 'convenient' it is 'ethical'. Often it is 'inconvenient', but I would rather be inconvenienced than unethical.

Did you mention a time frame regarding your political interests? Did it go back to when you were 20? To tell you the truth shag - I don't remember, nor do I keep your pm's. But, I would question if you really were immersed in politics at that time if you don't remember the smears against McCain and the fallout from them. It is a pretty important chapter in the 'Electing of GWB'. Foss wasn't aware of the smears either - but, if you were pretty politically savvy during that time, it was a big deal - the push polling regarding McCain's adopted black daughter is very famous.

There isn't anything wrong with not being politically aware 10 years ago, when you were 20. I just made the statement that it seemed like you weren't because you didn't seem to be aware of this rather famous tidbit in recent political campaign history. You are the one that is saying it was a smear, it wasn't meant to be. Being labeled 'politically unaware' as a past condition is not bad thing - it could just be an observation, as it is in this case. I didn't use it as a current condition, that would be a smear.

What you quote in regards to the Bush vs. McCain thing is not an "attack" but a summary of an "attack". So to compare it to attacks in editorial columns is to mischaracterize it.

There are many accounts (Townhall, Time, Boston Globe, The Nation, The New York Times, ABC News) about Bush/Rove's smear strategies in the 2000 campaign.

As to the claims about Palin I offered in post #38; most of them were covered by supposed "hard news" sources in the MSM when they were in fact wrong. And again, I could go into all the mischaracterization's and lies about her positions, her record and her political past. All of which were perpetuated by the MSM.

So, let's just go with one of the things you listed... the 'supposed' incestuous relationship between Bristol and her father... How about the 'hard news' stories about that smear. I gave you multiple accounts of how Bush smeared McCain, lets see some 'multiple hard news stories' regarding that smear.

So, we have from you in this thread: willful two-faced, opportunistic attempts to create a false stereotype and mischaracterization. No good faith in this discussion anymore so no reason to keep wasting my time with you here.

 

[fossten]

So the attacks on Palin are coming from 'straight' news Foss - and not editorial or 'comedy' writers? I don't get it - I don't think Brian Williams has been 'dishing' Bristol... Heck, shag did more to dish her than the 'straight' news has.

Editorial has attacked her family - along with comedians...

Tsk, tsk, fox, you're mixing and matching now. You're CITING an editorial as a source. That's not what I'm doing.

You're the one who always questions a source. I'm just playing by your rules.

You certainly don't get it.

 

[fossten]

Did you mention a time frame regarding your political interests? Did it go back to when you were 20? ...

There isn't anything wrong with not being politically aware 10 years ago, when you were 20. I just made the statement that it seemed like you weren't because you didn't seem to be aware of this rather famous tidbit in recent political campaign history. ...

Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals...mock and belittle. You can't make a solid argument, so you use oblique ad hominem.

 

[fossten]

^
I don't think man-made or man-helped Global Warming is a myth, there is data to support that massive pollution isn't good for the environment and climate change is an effect. Just because politicians took it and raped it for their own ends, doesn't mean it's false, which is the true shame in that.

Too bad, considering all the massive amount of evidence to the contrary that's been posted on this forum. I guess it just goes to show ya that some people stubbornly cling to the belief that the world is flat no matter what proof you show them.

Are you even aware that the earth's temp hasn't increased since 2001?

As far as Gore's stupid movie, remember the court case finding it full of errors?

 

[fossten]

Don't look now, here's ethics complaint number SIXTEEN and counting...

 

[shagdrum]

Yes because "running away" is consistent with my history with you on this forum.

Frankly I am tired of wasting time and energy countering you only to have the various parts of my posts either ignored or mischaracterized. So I simply look for the various dishonest tactics and when I see those used I point them out and remove myself from the debate. I am not going to waste time on this forum with someone who has demonstrated that they have no interest in an honest discourse.

 

[foxpaws]

So, let's just go with one of the things you listed... the 'supposed' incestuous relationship between Bristol and her father... How about the 'hard news' stories about that smear. I gave you multiple accounts of how Bush smeared McCain, lets see some 'multiple hard news stories' regarding that smear.

So, shag - don't have any hard new sources that ran with that story?

 

[fossten]

So, shag - don't have any hard new sources that ran with that story?

Where are your hard news sources for the Bush smears?

 

[shagdrum]

So, shag - don't have any hard new sources that ran with that story?

There you go again. Distorting my actions. I gave my reasons for leaving the debate and you are trying to spin it as something other then the reasons I gave.

BTW you have yet to provide any proof that the smears came from Bush. All you have is hearsay and speculation. You are promoting a false premise.

 

[fossten]

There you go again. Distorting my actions. I gave my reasons for leaving the debate and you are trying to spin it as something other then the reasons I gave.

BTW you have yet to provide any proof that the smears came from Bush. All you have is hearsay and speculation. You are promoting a false premise.

Run away, fox, run away!

 

[foxpaws]

From The Nation

Eight years ago this month, John McCain took the New Hampshire primary and was favored to win in South Carolina. Had he succeeded, he would likely have thwarted the presidential aspirations of George W. Bush and become the Republican nominee. But Bush strategist Karl Rove came to the rescue with a vicious smear tactic.

Rove invented a uniquely injurious fiction for his operatives to circulate via a phony poll. Voters were asked, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh.

It worked. Owing largely to the Rove-orchestrated whispering campaign, Bush prevailed in South Carolina and secured the Republican nomination. ​

From Time

After he upset an overconfident Bush by 19 points in New Hampshire, it appeared that McCain might take South Carolina too, ending Bush's bid. In a Greenville, S.C., hotel room the day after his New Hampshire loss, Bush's high command agreed to attack McCain as a double-talking Washington insider and closet liberal. They also discussed the help they could expect from outside groups not legally permitted to coordinate with the campaign. Said a Bush adviser: "We gotta hit him hard."

They did. While the campaign itself launched a fusillade of negative attacks, a network of murky anti-McCain groups ran push polls spreading lies about McCain's record. They papered the state with leaflets claiming, among other things, that Cindy McCain was a drug addict and John had fathered a black child out of wedlock, complete with a family photograph. The dark-skinned girl in the photo was, in fact, the McCains' daughter Bridget, whom they adopted as an infant after Cindy met her on a charity mission at Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh. ​

From The New Republic

John McCain's cruel treatment at the hands of Bush surrogates during the 2000 South Carolina primary has gone down in the annals of dirty tricks campaigning. In an echo chamber of almost unimaginable crassness and bigotry, anonymous robocalls smeared McCain as "the :q:q:q candidate" and his wife, Cindy, who had been treated for pain killer abuse, as a "drug addict." And perhaps most shockingly, one call accused McCain of having fathered an illegitimate "black baby" with a prostitute.​

This is old political history - those push polls by Rove are legendary. It appears that many here weren't even aware of these Republican to Republican smears. Perhaps you weren't working on a campaign at the time - but I was - and this was the road to the White House for Bush. Bush was heavily favored at the time - but for some reason wasn't getting the push in the primaries - Rove took care of it in South Carolina.

So, shag - about those 'hard news' sources regard the supposed incestuous relationship between Bristol and her father...

Or, let's try another - I realize the National Enquirer ran with the story that Palin had an affair with her husband's business partner - however, the Enquirer is hardly a 'hard' news source. Got the Time article regarding this accusation?

 

[fossten]

From The Nation

Eight years ago this month, John McCain took the New Hampshire primary and was favored to win in South Carolina. Had he succeeded, he would likely have thwarted the presidential aspirations of George W. Bush and become the Republican nominee. But Bush strategist Karl Rove came to the rescue with a vicious smear tactic.

Rove invented a uniquely injurious fiction for his operatives to circulate via a phony poll. Voters were asked, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh.

It worked. Owing largely to the Rove-orchestrated whispering campaign, Bush prevailed in South Carolina and secured the Republican nomination. ​

From Time

After he upset an overconfident Bush by 19 points in New Hampshire, it appeared that McCain might take South Carolina too, ending Bush's bid. In a Greenville, S.C., hotel room the day after his New Hampshire loss, Bush's high command agreed to attack McCain as a double-talking Washington insider and closet liberal. They also discussed the help they could expect from outside groups not legally permitted to coordinate with the campaign. Said a Bush adviser: "We gotta hit him hard."

They did. While the campaign itself launched a fusillade of negative attacks, a network of murky anti-McCain groups ran push polls spreading lies about McCain's record. They papered the state with leaflets claiming, among other things, that Cindy McCain was a drug addict and John had fathered a black child out of wedlock, complete with a family photograph. The dark-skinned girl in the photo was, in fact, the McCains' daughter Bridget, whom they adopted as an infant after Cindy met her on a charity mission at Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh. ​

From The New Republic

John McCain's cruel treatment at the hands of Bush surrogates during the 2000 South Carolina primary has gone down in the annals of dirty tricks campaigning. In an echo chamber of almost unimaginable crassness and bigotry, anonymous robocalls smeared McCain as "the :q:q:q candidate" and his wife, Cindy, who had been treated for pain killer abuse, as a "drug addict." And perhaps most shockingly, one call accused McCain of having fathered an illegitimate "black baby" with a prostitute.​

This is old political history - those push polls by Rove are legendary. It appears that many here weren't even aware of these Republican to Republican smears. Perhaps you weren't working on a campaign at the time - but I was - and this was the road to the White House for Bush. Bush was heavily favored at the time - but for some reason wasn't getting the push in the primaries - Rove took care of it in South Carolina.

So, shag - about those 'hard news' sources regard the supposed incestuous relationship between Bristol and her father...

Or, let's try another - I realize the National Enquirer ran with the story that Palin had an affair with her husband's business partner - however, the Enquirer is hardly a 'hard' news source. Got the Time article regarding this accusation?

All three of those rags are liberal editorial rags. You FAIL.

 

[foxpaws]

All three of those rags are liberal editorial rags. You FAIL.

So, earlier in this thread I posted a source from Townhall - no doubt another liberal rag...

Oh, I did a quick search of my 'liberal rag' sources - just to see if they reported on either Palin's supposed affair with Todd's business partner, or the smear regarding the incestuous relationship between Bristol and her Dad and came up empty.

I guess a least some of the msm avoided those stories - huh shag?

 

[Joeychgo]

I challenge anybody here to find any other politician who has been treated half as brutally as Palin and her family have.

Bill Clinton
George Bush
Richard Nixon

to name a few....

Old saying. If you cant take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

 

[shagdrum]

Bill Clinton
George Bush
Richard Nixon

Wrong
Wrong
and Wrong

Not even close. It is easy to assert that they were treated as viciously and unethically as Palin, but it is hard to prove. You haven't made the case.

 

[MonsterMark]

Well, Joey, here's my take on Palin.

It was a brilliant move. More Republicans say they will support her in 2012 for President. Over 70%.

USA Today did a poll and 70% of people didn't change their views of Palin post resignation. Either you love her or hate her. Nothings changed.

There needs to be a strong conservative voice in the media and unfortunately for her, me and the Country, Fox News is not up to the challenge. This will have to be a grass-roots efforts if we are going to once again become a 'conservative' nation.

 

[fossten]

So, earlier in this thread I posted a source from Townhall - no doubt another liberal rag...

Oh, I did a quick search of my 'liberal rag' sources - just to see if they reported on either Palin's supposed affair with Todd's business partner, or the smear regarding the incestuous relationship between Bristol and her Dad and came up empty.

I guess a least some of the msm avoided those stories - huh shag?

You can try putting some ketchup on your sh** sandwich, but it's still not edible.

 

[MonsterMark]

By Tim Graham | July 10, 2009 - 07:56

On AOL Politics Daily, long-time White House reporter Carl Cannon bluntly declared that the political press gave Sarah Palin a raw deal in the 2008 campaign, and seriously failed to scrutinize Joe Biden, especially his fact-mangling and odd statements in the vice presidential debate. Cannon summed up:

In the 2008 election, we took sides, straight and simple, particularly with regard to the vice presidential race. I don't know that we played a decisive role in that campaign, and I'm not saying the better side lost. What I am saying is that we simply didn't hold Joe Biden to the same standard as Sarah Palin, and for me, the real loser in this sordid tale is my chosen profession.


From the beginning, and for the ensuing 10 months, the coverage of this governor consisted of a steamy stew of cultural elitism and partisanship. The overt sexism of some male commentators wasn't countered, as one might have expected, by their female counterparts. Women columnists turned on Sarah Palin rather quickly. A plain-speaking, moose-hunting, Bible-thumping, pro-life, self-described "hockey mom" with five children and movie star looks with only a passing interest in foreign policy -- that wasn't the woman journalism's reigning feminists had envisioned for the glass ceiling-breaking role of First Female President (or Vice President). Hillary Rodham Clinton was more like what they had in mind – and Sarah, well, she was the un-Hillary.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

By Tim Graham | July 10, 2009 - 07:56

A plain-speaking, moose-hunting, Bible-thumping, pro-life, self-described "hockey mom" with five children and movie star looks with only a passing interest in foreign policy -- that wasn't the woman journalism's reigning feminists had envisioned for the glass ceiling-breaking role of First Female President (or Vice President). Hillary Rodham Clinton was more like what they had in mind – and Sarah, well, she was the un-Hillary.

Well, at least they got that part right. :bowrofl:

Geez, Palin and you RWWs have elevated the art of victimhood to a whole new level. At least when she tried to explain, she threw out every excuse in the book knowing ONE of them might be actually true. Even the one she leaned most heavily on was false (big surprize):

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/r...-palin-gave-for-quitting-appears-to-be-false/

Updated below.

One of the chief reasons Sarah Palin has given for resigning as Governor of Alaska is that her state’s taxpayers are being forced to spend money defending her government against ethics complaints that would otherwise fund teachers, cops, and road repair.

But in response to our questions, a spokesperson for the Alaska governor’s office just gave us new information that casts serious doubt on this assertion. The revelation makes the resignation episode even stranger, and raises fresh questions about the real reasons for her abrupt departure.

During her resignation speech last week, Palin presented herself as a heroic defender of the taxpayer. She said that money being spent on government lawyers to defend against these “frivolous ethics violations” could be “going to things that are very important, like troopers and roads and teachers and fish research.” Palin repeated exactly the same point this week.

But David Murrow, a spokesperson for the Governor, said in an interview that much of this money was budgeted to the lawyers in advance and would have gone to them anyway, even if state lawyers hadn’t been defending against these ethics complaints.

In response to our questions, the Governor’s office provided us with a detailed breakdown of the millions Palin has claimed has gone to defending against ethics complaints. It does list roughly $1.9 million in expenditures.

But Murrow, the spokesperson, acknowledged to our reporter, Amanda Erickson, that this total was arrived at by adding up attorney hours spent on fending off complaints — based on the fixed salaries of lawyers in the governor’s office and the Department of Law. The money would have gone to the lawyers no matter what they were doing. The complaints are “just distracting them from other duties,” Murrow said.

In other words, while these lawyers might have been free to do other legal work for the state, the ethics complaints have apparently not had the real world impact Palin has claimed, and didn’t drain money away from cops, teachers, roads and other things.

Similarly, TPM reports that there are only three ethics complaints outstanding against the Palin administration in any case — which, combined with the above, casts serious doubts on one of her chief stated reasons for quitting.

Murrow has not responded to folllow-up questions asking him to explain how this squares with Palin’s claims. We’ll update you if he does.

************************************

Bottom line, she's a QUITTER and a LIAR who can't take the heat of elected office and could never have been trusted "one heartbeat away". Don't let the door hit you in the arse on your way out.

 

[Calabrio]

Bottom line, she's a QUITTER and a LIAR who can't take the heat of elected office and could never have been trusted "one heartbeat away". Don't let the door hit you in the arse on your way out.

What exactly is the cause of you outrage and disgust directed towards Gov. Palin? Agree or disagree with her, what you have here is a woman of humble origins who was motivated by a sense of duty to serve public office.

Because of her integrity, she acquired enemies on both sides of the political aisle in Alaska. And because she's perceived as a political threat to the liberal political establishment, and because she's an outsider in the establishment Republican circles, she's been attacked by both sides of the aisle in Washington, D.C.

These all seem like positives to me.

The logic and reasoning behind her leaving her position as Governor absolutely makes sense. Whether it's politically advantageous or a liability can be a subject of discussion. Her agenda as governor is better served now by the Lt. Governor. She may well be sacrificing any larger political aspirations for the benefit of her constituents in Alaska.

And now, without the confines of public office in a remote state, she may take this opportunity to develop as a national political figure. I would readily acknowledge that she was a bit green when running in the '08 election. However, no more so than Obama. And I thought she was an honest, breath of fresh air in the race.

I'm not comparing her to Reagan, but using him as an example. Reagan didn't emerge as the figure he became over night. It happened over years, the message and his positions were refined after touring the country, giving speeches, writing, and during the late seventies, doing radio segments. Palin needs the opportunity to expand her focus and refine her message before we dismiss or completely embrace her.

But, in general terms, what's not to like about her? She's the ideal version of what we WANT in Washington. A real person, with a relatable background, with shared values. A normal family, a spouse who has a REAL job (not a lobbyist), and someone who has similar desires and passions as we do. On a trivial and superficial level, I liked the notion of Todd Palin being involved in Snow machine racing and having a blue collar job.

People who live in the real America, and not inside the beltway, within the University, or just in affluent cliques in the largest handful of cities, have a vastly different understand of life and reality. One that revolves around traditional values and realism. We don't see that in Washington right now. We have a political guilded class. Politicians who hand down their seats over generations. And in general, a class of politicians who live in a utopian bubble.

 

[MonsterMark]

Well, at least

you're still lurking and up to the 'ol hit and runnin'.

Bottom line, she's a QUITTER and a LIAR who can't take the heat of elected office and could never have been trusted "one heartbeat away".

Boy, you libs are so praying (ooops..koolaid drinking) for that to be true. I know that the new narrative because you see it on every lib site.

It's amazing, you people all start barking the same bark at the same time. Can't anyone on the Left run with one of their own thoughts? That explains the 'sheeple' part I guess.

 

[shagdrum]

smears, disinformation and distortion...

Wouldn't expect anything else from one of your trolling, childish outbursts.