For 2012 if it were: Obama vs Palin?

Post Reply New Topic

She made a commitment to serve the people, and she broke to commitment to go chase cash. No one needs to cry a river over her 500k in debt due to lawsuits. That kind of money is chump change to her. I seriously doubt her net worth ever went negative. Besides, if the lawsuits were so frivolous, would the judge just throw them out? I'll save my compassion for the families who are strapped with 500K in medical debt because a loved one needed a heart transplant that the insurance company wouldn't pay for.

I also don't think she should win any awards for giving birth to a baby with Down's. They knew the risks associated with advanced maternal age prior to conceiving. The real challenge is raising a child with a disability. Considering the amount of time she spends on press tours and book signings, it's not clear if she is, in fact, the one doing that.

They were being tossed, but still she had to pay for lawyers... A malicious tactic that is now used to shut people up is to sue them and keep suing them until you so totally destroy them financially that their life is a ruin. She also couldn't serve the Alaska people because she was too busy dealing with lawsuit after lawsuit.

Also speaking of charity...
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/260733



Again though you are making an assumption. Raising a kid with a disability can be expensive especially if insurance isn't covering any therapy sessions for instance.

Wrt. Palin's legal fees, she has had no trouble getting other people to give her money for that (sometimes illegally):
http://www.adn.com/2010/06/24/1339431/s ... laint.html
quote:
An investigator has determined former Gov. Sarah Palin's legal defense fund broke state ethics law and said Palin has agreed to settle the matter by having the trust return more than $386,000 to donors.

...the legal defense fund violated state law because it "constituted using public office to obtain private benefit." He said the fund, which was set up while Palin was still governor, inappropriately said it was the "official website" of Palin, and made reference to her work in public office.

...Palin's personal lawyer, Tom Van Flein of Anchorage, "strongly advised" the trust be vetted by the Alaska Department of Law to make sure it was legal under Alaska ethics law, Petumenos wrote.

But Palin instead chose to follow the advice of another attorney who recommended against seeking input from the attorney general, and instead to simply contest the "inevitable" ethics complaint when it came, Petumenos wrote in his report.
...A new legal defense fund was set up for Palin on Thursday, called the Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund. That fund is led by Tim Crawford, who is treasurer for Palin's political action committee, SarahPAC.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ge-for-he/

So, say she owes 600K in legal fees: the RNC is paying 257K, leaving 343K in unpaid fees. Last I heard, her new (legal) legal defense website raised 120K in the first two weeks it was up, leaving 223K in legal fees.

She gets ~100K per speaking engagement. Three speeches, and the legal fees were covered.

Let's stop with the whining about how poor, poor Sarah can't pay her legal fees, OK?

In addition: the state might have found that what Palin did in Troopergate was legal, but that does not make it ethical.

In addition: because of Palin's 'death panel' accusation, a provision that would have allowed for doctors to consult with their patients about end-of-life care was stripped from the bill, meaning that more people are going to waste away in the ICU with their bodies hooked up to half a dozen machines, sedated (if they're lucky) into unconsciousness. Given that I work in a hospital and see this on a regular basis, I find the ignorance or callousness it took to make the claim that discussing the fact that we're all going to die with one's doctor is somehow evil, repugnant.

She has also lied egregiously about other things over and over; her relationship with the truth is, at best, distant and impersonal.

Also:

Too bad for everyone else in Alaska that she cut funding for disabled children programs, then:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/3/163229/8631
Oh, and also funding for troubled teens, including a program for pregnant teenagers:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/200 ... -help.html

Getting back to troopergate, do you think a State Police Officer should keep his job after issuing Death Threats towards the Governor's family?

Also LKL, you neglected to mention:


Petumenos was the second independent counsel hired by the state's Personnel Board to investigate the ethics complaint Chatman filed against Palin over the fund on April 28, 2009. The first, Anchorage attorney Tom Daniel, last summer found "probable cause" that Palin's Alaska Fund Trust violated state ethics laws. Daniel left the case in January because Palin alleged his law firm, Perkins Coie, had a conflict of interest.

Perkins Coie is a national firm that represented Barack Obama's presidential campaign and handles legal issues for many prominent Democratic groups. In his report, Petumenos, a former prosecutor, said he started from scratch in January and reached a similar conclusion to Daniel's report.


http://www.adn.com/2010/06/24/1339431/s ... laint.html

Rhetorical Question: Anyone else see a conflict of interest?

And the second investigator:

Chatman, who filed the ethics complaint against the fund, questioned Petumenos' conclusion that Palin didn't knowingly break the law. She said she was glad to see the money has to be paid back but wants to see proof that it actually happens. Petumenos said the Alaska Department of Law will be supervising the payback.

http://www.adn.com/2010/06/24/1339431/s ... laint.html

So the first investigator was a partisan hack, and the second concluded she did not knowingly break the law.

Interesting that you responded to a post with four article citations about 7 minutes after it was posted. Maybe you're a fast reader, or maybe you just didn't bother to check the evidence.

Notice that the passage you cite say that one lawyer left due to an alleged conflict of interest, but the one that replaced him reached a similar conclusion? And notice, also, that Palin eventually agreed to shut down the 'official' site and return the money (in other words, that she lost)?

Here's another fun one, btw:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bella-dep ... 66160.html

I am a quick reader, I quoted your own source.



There is a difference between getting bad legal advice and knowingly breaking the law.

Also from the same article.


Legal expenses also came from other ethics complaints that were lodged against Palin, nearly all of which were dismissed by the Alaska Personnel Board. The complaints are supposed to be confidential, so there could be some pending.




If that's your star witness your case is in serious trouble. Huffington Post is a left-wing propaganda site. They are so far to the Left that they make Senator John McCain look like Rush Limbaugh.

I noticed that; I also noticed that you didn't address any of the other ones.


She got two pieces of advice; one was to check with the AG, the other was to 'deal with the fallout after it happened,' and presumably hope that she could still make a profit from the website. She chose, with open eyes, the latter path.


Yes, we're well aware that most of the complaints were dismissed.




Yes, the Huffpo is; however, if you had actually READ even the intro the article, you would realize that it was originally posted in the Psychology Today blog and moved to Huffpo because of the abuse received by the author. quote:
...But something I recently posted at Psychology Today, "Sarah Palin's Lies" (now posted in full below), elicited more vitriolic comments and personal e-mails than anything else I've ever written. Here are a few examples:

* "Why is it that fat, ugly sluts like you are always liberal democrats?"
* "You will die, eventually, and take the evil with you. And that is as it should be. As such, you are clearly not a real American, but one of the obama type. There are plenty of places for you to live, but NOT in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!" [It got nastier after this.]

I realize that viciousness is part of the blogosphere, and that other bloggers experience much worse, so I'm not complaining. If I'm going to write about controversy and do it in a passionate way, then I have to be ready for whatever might come my way. It is interesting, though, that when Sarah Palin was asked recently about the people who have criticized her, she said, "These are probably some lonely people, some shallow people." So perhaps her defenders are simply following her lead. Or maybe they would have commented as they did even without Palin's example.

I don't particularly care what the Huffington Post says. I would believe Bill Clinton claiming, "I did not have sex with that woman," over the Huffington Post.

Heck the National Enquirer has better journalistic standards Maybe shouldn't use that comparison because they have demonstrated better journalistic standards than the entire mainstream media. What other printed tabloid is out there that is usually considered good for a laugh but not truthful.

For the second time, that article did not originate at Huffpo. See above. Here's another one, anyway:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... :blogunit1

I don't consider that to be any better of a source...

Which one, the Daily Beast or Psychology Today?

In either case, your only defense is an ad-hominem.

Actually it's easy to dismiss both. The first one due to its lack of objectivity and blatently transparent agenda. The second should know better than to make claims like that (which I haven't seen a Psychology Today quoted), it is unprofessional for starters.

a paraphrase of above:
'The first because some of its content is biased, though I can't contradict anything in that particular article, and the second because I don't like the claims that are made in that article.'

Actually it was a polite way of saying that the source being used is so disreputable that it shouldn't even be dignified with a response.

A trap people on the spectrum fall into is that they don't know when to just ignore something. The accusations about Palin have been debunked so many times it's getting ridiculous.

You use sources like Daily Kos, Daily Beast, and Huffington Post whose sole mission is to trash Conservatives and promote a far left agenda, and you expect me to waste my time deconstructing their arguments and giving them a credibility they don't even remotely deserve. Are you going to use MoveOn.org as a source next?

This is about as credible as the NY Times hitpiece during 2008 election and subsequent lawsuit by Vicki Iseman.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8629.html


Also a Conservative source that has more details on the hit piece.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/30/v ... hit-piece/

Ok, so sources you won't bother to counter: Huffpo, Kos, Beast, MoveOn, and the NYT. What, out of curiosity, will you accept? Presumably, the mere fact that a source is criticizing Palin means that it is 'too left wing' for you to take seriously.

In other words, you are running on faith rather than on evidence.

I consider politico to be occasionally truthful, but you have to seperate the story from the spin. Drudge Report gives places credibility (if it is linked from drudge the story is more credible).

Places that tend to be most credible are Fox News and CNN. Fox News leans right and CNN leans left (but CNN isn't out in loonyville like MSNBC). And you still should back check what they report as well.