This should scare us all about Palin

[LotsOfQuestions]

And of course Bill Clinton just spilled his guts to Ken Starr, right?

Wow, it took a whole 4 pages before the right brings in what they consider their trump card...

But Bill did......(x,y,z)

Talk about desperation, when you can't argue the issue, throw in Clinton.

 

[Barbossa]

And of course Bill Clinton just spilled his guts to Ken Starr, right?

I'll forgive Bill, he was 100 times the president that Dubya is. Besides, Ken Starr was an attack dog specifically created to bring Clinton down. Bush and his minions defy the very justice department that they've created.

 

[Geoff_M]

Sorry, I forgot that conservatives weren't allowed to utter his name...

Look, here's a bit of advice that Micky Kaus offered to Obama and his supporters a couple of days ago, I think it's pretty good...

Listen, Obamaphiles!
Outrage at McCain's "lies" is a total loser strategy.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Monday, Sept. 15, 2008, at 6:24 PM ET

Does MSNBC (Olbermann et. al) really want Obama to win? Won't their ratings be higher in 2009 if they represent the angry opposition--as opposed to the disillusioned party in power? Just a thought. ... P.S.: This factor might cause them not to worry too much whether their exaggerated anti-Palin and anti-McCain theatrics actually help the Democratic ticket. (Or it might not--I am playing crude Marxist here.) ... P.P.S.: Emails I've gotten in response to the item immediatley below suggest that "base" conservatives are well aware of McCain's unrecanted heresies on immigration and stem cells--but these mere issues are overwhelmed by their cultural hostility to the MSM's treatment of Obama and Palin. They're being cheap dates and fools--putting evanescent emotion over consequential legislation--but that seems to be the operative dynamic at the moment. Olbermann doesn't help. (The more firmly the GOP base is nailed down by MSM-hatred, remember, the more McCain can lunge for swing voters by running as a semi-Dem "maverick.") ... 2:33 P.M.

____________________________

Mark Halperin's three pieces of advice for Obama seem sound. (They are 1. Ignore Palin; 2. Get in McCain's head the way McCain's getting in Obama's; and 3. Refocus on the economy in an accessible way.) ... To which I'd add:

4. It's a good week for point 3!

5. The current lib blog-MSM-campaign tack--getting outraged by McCain's "lies"--is a total loser strategy. Why?

a) MSM outrage doesn't sway voters anymore. It didn't even back in 1988, when the press tried to make a stink about George H.W. Bush's use of "flag factories," etc. After this year's failed MSM Palin assault, it certainly won't work;

b) When Dems get outraged at unfairness they look weak. How can they stand up to Putin if they start whining when confronted with Steve Schmidt? McCain's camp can fake umbrage all it wants--the latest is that an Atlantic photographer took some nasty photos that the mag didn't run!--and nobody will accuse MCain of being weak. That's so unfair. A double standard. Dems can learn to live with it or complain about the unfairness for another 4 years. Their choice.

c) It's almost always impossible to prove that a Republican attack is a 100% lie. Either there's a germ of truth (Kerry did hype his wartime heroism at least a bit) or the truth is indeterminate (i.e., there's no way of knowing what Obama meant by "lipstick"--just because he and McCain used the word earlier doesn't mean he didn't think using it now, after Palin's speech, didn't add a witty resonance).

d) Lecturing the public on what's 'true" and what's a "lie" (when the truth isn't 100% clear) plays into some of the worst stereotypes about liberals--that they are preachy know-it-alls hiding their political motives behind a veneer of objectivity and respectability.

e) Inevitably the people being outraged on Obama's behalf will phrase their arguments in ways well-designed to appeal to their friends--and turn off the unconverted. ('This is just what they did to John Kerry and Michael Dukakis!' As if the public yearns for the lost Kerry and Dukakis Presidencies. 'Today's kindergarteners need some sex education. Just because Republicans are old fashioned ...' etc. Or 'These are Karl Rove tactics,' which signifies little to non-Dem voters except a partisan rancor they'd like to put behind them.)

Lots of people like bad Disney movies, and don't like the kind of people who sneer at bad Disney movies.

6. There must be some way to disillusion the conservative base with McCain, at least a bit. I know the CW--Palin has locked in the base, freeing McCain to move left. But jeez, McCain isn't moving to the left just on immigration, and he isn't moving subtly. Listen to this new radio ad, which might as well be titled "Stem Cell Research, Stem Cell Research, Stem Cell Research, Stem Cell Research." That's how often the phrase is repeated. How much more Screw-You-I'm-Taking-You-for-Granted can McCain get? Are conservatives complete suckers?

7. McCain's made great progress with independents by going against his party. Obama can do the same thing. Obvious areas of potential anti-Dem apostasy: Charter schools, firing incompetent teachers, class-based affirmative action, welfare. At least express some doubts about liberal legalism or the headlong rush to immigrant semi-amnesty. Last Tuesday Obama may have tried to make waves by talking about "schools filled with poor teachers"--a Dem no-no if there ever was one. It got buried by the lipstick pig. So don't complain. Say it again! ...

Backfill: See also this helpfully unimpressed Michael Goodwin column. ("No more Mr. Nice Guy, Obama vows. He's going to really start hitting John McCain now. He's going to make voters understand that McCain equals four more years of George Bush. It's a weird decision because Obama has been doing exactly that for four months. The problem is not that Obama hasn't hit McCain hard enough or linked him to Bush often enough. The problem is that he hasn't done anything else.. ...[W]hat happened to that post-partisan uniter who took the country by storm during the early primaries ... Why not bring him back?")

 

[wendy46001]

Quote:

Five Alaska Legislators, Rep. Wes Keller, Rep. Mike Kelly, Rep. Bob Lynn, Sen. Fred Dyson, and Sen. Tom Wagoner, will file suit in state superior court in Anchorage tomorrow morning (9/16/08) at 9:00 am (Superior courthouse 4th Avenue) against Sen. French, Sen. Kim Elton, Stephen Branchflower and the Alaska Legislative Council in order to halt the investigation of Governor Sarah Palin and others because the investigators have lost the appearance of impartiality required under the Alaska Constitution. The Legislators will ask for declaratory and injunctive relief in the investigation, stating that it is an attempt to use the Alaska Legislative Council to further partisan politics.

So a group of Republican politicians are filing a law suite because they don’t want a few democrats investigating her?? Should we all step back and let her investigate herself??

 

[Independent]

And of course Bill Clinton just spilled his guts to Ken Starr, right?

The abuse of power is a bit more serious than an extra marital affair. (The lie didn't come until later in the investigation).

 

[Geoff_M]

So a group of Republican politicians are filing a law suite because they don’t want a few democrats investigating her?? Should we all step back and let her investigate herself??

No, I think they'd be happy if they guy that appears to be driving things wasn't someone that was also writing checks to Obama '08... Is that too much to ask for?

 

[Independent]

Quote:

Five Alaska Legislators, Rep. Wes Keller, Rep. Mike Kelly, Rep. Bob Lynn, Sen. Fred Dyson, and Sen. Tom Wagoner, will file suit in state superior court in Anchorage tomorrow morning (9/16/08) at 9:00 am (Superior courthouse 4th Avenue) against Sen. French, Sen. Kim Elton, Stephen Branchflower and the Alaska Legislative Council in order to halt the investigation of Governor Sarah Palin and others because the investigators have lost the appearance of impartiality required under the Alaska Constitution. The Legislators will ask for declaratory and injunctive relief in the investigation, stating that it is an attempt to use the Alaska Legislative Council to further partisan politics.

The Legislators cite in their lawsuit that the investigation into the firing of former Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public safety Walt Monegan, led by Sens. Hollis French and Kim Elton, with Stephen Branchflower and the Alaska Legislative Council, is being driven by partisan politics in an attempt to unlawfully smear Gov. Palin and others.

“The Partisan actions of Sen. French, Sen. Elton and the Legislative Council have tainted the investigation beyond the appearance of impartiality required under the Alaska Constitution,” said Kevin Clarkson, Esq., of the firm Brena, Bell & Clarkson, P.C., and counsel in the suit.

The investigation, which began after Monegan’s dismissal in July 2008, is being led by outspoken supporters of Barack Obama and members of the Democratic Party. Sen. Elton, the Chair of the Legislative Council donated $2,000 to the Obama campaign but has failed to disclose this to the Legislative Council and he continues to preside over the Council with respect to the investigation, refusing to convene meetings of the Council at the request of a majority of the Council’s membership. Sen. French the investigation “project manager” failed to disclose to the Legislative Council the comments he made on a radio program criticizing the Governor’s conduct regarding the termination of Monegan as “criminal” prior to being appointed as the investigation “project manager” and even prior to a vote to investigate at all. Sen. French also failed to disclose to the Legislative Council that he had a personal bone to pick with the Governor over the Monegan firing because Monegan was a friend and because he had worked closely with Monegan during the 2008 legislative session regarding attempts to include in the state budget items that Governor Palin had vetoed.

And this is not a political stall maneuver how?

 

[Geoff_M]

The abuse of power is a bit more serious than an extra marital affair. (The lie didn't come until later in the investigation).

Funny, I thought the charge was "lying under oath".... no biggie, right?

 

[OceanAnnie]

Funny, I thought the charge was "lying under oath".... no biggie, right?

Naw. *Cough* *cough* impeached *cough* *cough*

 

[Independent]

Funny, I thought the charge was "lying under oath".... no biggie, right?

Guess you didn't read what you quoted.

Clinton wouldn't have had to say "I did not have sex with that woman" if there was not an investigation already under way about who he was having sex with. The investigation started with who he was having sex with. It did not start with 'the lie.'

 

[OceanAnnie]

Guess you didn't read what you quoted.

Clinton wouldn't have had to say

"I did not have sex with that woman" if there was not an investigation already under way about who he was having sex with. The investigation started with who he was having sex with. It did not start with 'the lie.'

"I did not have sex with that woman."

 

[wendy46001]

No, I think they'd be happy if they guy that appears to be driving things wasn't someone that was also righting checks to Obama '08... Is that too much to ask for?

So they'd rather he write the checks to McCain

Its an election year...in a two party system (the root of most our issues)...the votes either go to her team or the other guys...

Still it is the same guy she agree to work with last week right?
(i'm sure they knew he wasnt a republican then)

 

[Independent]

Guess you didn't read what you quoted.

Clinton wouldn't have had to say "I did not have sex with that woman" if there was not an investigation already under way about who he was having sex with. The investigation started with who he was having sex with. It did not start with 'the lie.'

"I did not have sex with that woman."

ummm, yeah, that is what I wrote.

Your point?

Geoff started the argument that Clinton did not spill his guts to Ken Starr. Spilling his guts about an extra-marital affair is not quite as big a deal as spilling your guts about abuse of power.

Yes, he did get impeached for lying about it, after the investigation started. All the more reason Palin should be forthcoming in what happened in troopergate.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Funny, I thought the charge was "lying under oath".... no biggie, right?

If only Gov. and Mr. Palin testify under oath. But it doesn't appear that they will. The refusal to testify under oath worked for Bush/Cheney so it's just more of the same from the rabid reformer . . .

 

[LohKee]

Obama scares me and plenty of other American's way more than Sarah ever could (FTR - she doesn't scare me one bit).

With all the people being scared of Mr.Obama, I'm pretty sure the Klans membership drive is bigger than ever

 

[Geoff_M]

So they'd rather he write the checks to McCain

Its an election year...in a two party system (the root of most our issues)...the votes either go to her team or the other guys...

Still it is the same guy she agree to work with last week right?
(i'm sure they knew he wasnt a republican then)

Again, you're acting like no new information has come to public attention in the last week... it has.

There's a difference between someone that has a "D" after their name, and someone that's also actively and financially supporting your opponent.

 

[OceanAnnie]

ummm, yeah, that is what I wrote.

Your point?

Geoff started the argument that Clinton did not spill his guts to Ken Starr. Spilling his guts about an extra-marital affair is not quite as big a deal as spilling your guts about abuse of power.

Yes, he did get impeached for lying about it, after the investigation started. All the more reason Palin should be forthcoming in what happened in troopergate.

I guess it all depends on your perspective. All the money and time that went into the investigation of a presiding President that lied about having and extra-marital affair in his office on the tax payers dime, yeah that's a big deal to me.

Do you know why the trooper was fired? Do you think the things the trooper did was okay?

 

[LotsOfQuestions]

Again, you're acting like no new information has come to public attention in the last week... it has.

There's a difference between someone that has a "D" after their name, and someone that's also actively and financially supporting your opponent.

If she was not aware that the person she agreed to work with was a huge supporter of Obama before she agreed to work with him, that is all the more reason to believe that she is not intelligent enough, nor savy enough to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

She has known for sometime that she was on the list of potential VP candidates, even though she was not yet on the short list.

If she is that dumb, I don't want her making decisions for this country.

 

[tinkryansmom]

We really all should be demanding full discloser.

Finally someone agrees! Now can we see that birth certificate? No, not the photoshopped one.

Unfortunately none of this will matter. It's called rationalization and denial.

Yup. Your side knows it well.

Wouldn't someone who had nothing to hide cooperate fully with the investigation and put it behind them? This is ridiculous! This is why I didn't like the focus on her parenting early on---She has enough to answer for in regard to her governing, but clearly answering questions is not high on the agenda! Truth and honor have long ago left the Republican campain, in my opinion. I only hope that Americans can see behind their smokescreen of supposed change.

previously stated *cough* Clinton *cough*

smokescreen *cough* Obama *cough*

See bolded - I could not have said it any better myself. Thank you.

My issue is if you keep saying you will do something and then wont it looks bad.
If you keep saying you can PROVE you didnt nothing then whether you think its a witch hunt or not it shouldnt matter. They just want to delay til after the election.

Like delaying decussing troop withdrawl until after the election? You mean like that? Seems Obama thinks it is a good tactic.

The ONLY relevant experience she has is 20 months as Governor of Alaska. That might be enough if she had exceptional talent in addition, but we have all heard her speak. She is an IDIOT! And this idiot is going to be one heartbeat away from being the most powerful person on the planet. Utterly terrifying.

um....errrr....um...that's not what I meant, let me clarify. Does that make Obama an idiot too? BTW IMHO applying the term "idiot" is a little harsh. Even for Obama.

 

[joviroxx]

If only Gov. and Mr. Palin testify under oath. But it doesn't appear that they will. The refusal to testify under oath worked for Bush/Cheney so it's just more of the same from the rabid reformer . . .

Branchflower has said she isn't being subpoenaed so I dont see any refusal to testify there.