Joe Scarborough: Time For GOP To Man Up And Take On Sarah Palin

Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough wants the GOP to stop kowtowing to Sarah Palin and her acolytes. He's right.

Former Congressman and current MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough wants his fellow Republicans to stop being so afraid of taking on Sarah Palin:

Republicans have a problem. The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected. And yet the same leaders who fret that Sarah Palin could devastate their party in 2012 are too scared to say in public what they all complain about in private.

Enough. It’s time for the GOP to man up.

Everybody knows that Palin is a busy woman. The former half-term governor of Alaska stays so busy these days that one wonders how this mother of five manages to juggle her new reality show, follow her eldest daughter’s dancing career and launch her latest frenetic book tour while still finding the time to insult a slew of revered presidents and first ladies.

You’ve got to admit hers is a breathtaking high-wire act.

What man or mouse with a fully functioning human brain and a résumé as thin as Palin’s would flirt with a presidential run? It makes the political biography of Barack Obama look more like Winston Churchill’s, despite the fact that the 44th president breezed into the Oval Office as little more than a glorified state senator.

Still, Palin is undeterred, charging ahead maniacally while declaring her intention to run for the top office in the land if “nobody else will.” Adding audacity to this dopey dream is that Palin can’t stop herself from taking swings at Republican giants. In the past month alone, she has mocked Ronald Reagan’s credentials, dismissed George H.W. and Barbara Bush as arrogant “blue bloods” and blamed George W. Bush for wrecking the economy.

Scarborough is especially bothered by what he perceives as Palin’s attacks on Reagan and Bush 41 in her effort to try to deflect attacks on her own, rather meager, record:

When Sean Hannity asked Palin whether being in a reality show diminished her standing to be president, the former half-term governor mocked Reagan’s biography, dismissing him as “an actor.”

Sounding like every left-wing politician and media elitist who ridiculed Reagan for decades, Palin sneered that she could be president if the actor from “Bedtime for Bonzo” managed to do so.

(…)

The 40th president first led a major American labor union through massive upheaval, toured factories for General Electric for eight years and was California’s governor for two full terms during the Golden State’s most momentous times. Reagan then challenged an incumbent president from his own party and reinvented American conservatism without the help of the GOP establishment or the conservative movement.

(…)

Maybe Richards and Palin were right. Maybe poor George Herbert Walker Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Indeed, he was so pampered growing up that on his 18th birthday, the young high school graduate enlisted in the armed forces. This spoiled teenager somehow managed to be the youngest pilot in the Navy when he received his wings, flying 58 combat missions over the Pacific during World War II. On Sept. 2, 1944, “Blue Blood” Bush almost lost his life after being shot down by Japanese anti-aircraft fire.

With his engine shattered and his plane on fire, Bush still refused to turn back, completing his mission by scoring several damaging hits on enemy targets. His plane crashed in the Pacific, where he waited for four hours in enemy waters until he was finally rescued. For his bravery and service to this country, Bush was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, three air medals and the Presidential Unit Citation for bravery while in combat.

What a spoiled brat.

I suppose Palin’s harsh dismissal of this great man is more understandable after one reads her biography and realizes that, like Bush, she accomplished a great deal in her early 20s. Who wouldn’t agree that finishing third in the Miss Alaska beauty contest is every bit as treacherous as risking your life in military combat? Maybe the beauty contestant who would one day be a reality star and former governor didn’t win the Distinguished Flying Cross, but the half-termer was selected as Miss Congeniality by her fellow contestants.

I said much the same thing about Palin’s absurd Reagan comparison the other day, and Scarborough expanded on his comments during his show today:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Scarborough’s rhetoric is harsh, probably intentionally so, and it’s likely to draw a fair bit of comment and criticism from Palin’s supporters on the right. At least one conservative, though, Politics Daily’s Matt Lewis, thinks that Scarbough does raise fair points about Palin, her record, and her suitability for higher office:

– In attempting to prove she was like Reagan, Palin may have instead done the opposite. Reagan, I think, would have laughed off Rove’s criticism

— or (as I’ve argued in the past when Palin has gone on the attack) sent out a surrogate to do the attacking. He wouldn’t have thought it fitting for someone of his stature to attack a staffer. Palin seems unable to ignore such criticism, and certainly is not interested in rising above the din. This was recently the case regarding comments made by Barbara Bush, who, after all, is an old woman. Others have noted that with age, we tend to lose the ability (or desire) to filter our words. Rather than fire back at the Bushes, calling them “blue bloods” (which, of course, they are), couldn’t Palin have instead graciously brushed it off? Wouldn’t outclassing the Bushes have been the best revenge?

– While I’m not sure Scarborough’s classification of Palin’s TV show is fair, and while I think the criticism over Palin comparing herself to Reagan was overblown, I do think Scarborough’s main thesis — that Palin may not be ready for prime time — deserves consideration. Anyone running for president (and she is considering it) deserves such scrutiny. Is she serious enough? Does she have the intellectual heft or gravitas? These are all fair questions.

Indeed they are, and Scarborough is right to call out his fellow Republicans to take her on if they intend to oppose her in a 2012 run. Anonymous comments to the press aren’t going to accomplish anything, but as I noted last month I’m not sure that there’s a lot that can be done to stop a Palin juggernaut from going all the way to the Tampa Bay convention if one develops:

Aside from getting behind a single, alternative candidate early and persuading everyone else to drop out of the race, I’m not sure what it is the Establishment can do. The piece attributes to a “longtime Republican leader” the notion that “party elders hope to thwart Palin by strengthening the Republican National Committee.” But it’s not at all clear what good that would do. The RNC doesn’t endorse, fund, or otherwise help primary candidates.

And the Republican nominating process, specifically designed to give a huge advantage to early frontrunners by awarding delegates on a winner-take-all basis, could have the perverse effect of nominating the candidate that a majority thinks would be a disaster. She could easily get a plurality in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — especially in a crowded field.

The Establishment’s best hope, aside from Palin deciding she wants to be the next Oprah rather than the next Obama, is for another candidate with strong Tea Party appeal to run and split that voting bloc. But who would that be? Mike Huckabee would seem the obvious choice — he was technically the number two finisher (by virtue of staying in to collect delegates long after the race was over, unlike Romney) in 2008, and legitimately the number three finisher. But does he have any juice left? Or has Palin supplanted him as the outsider candidate?

Scarborough’s call is the right one, I think, for anyone who wants to see the GOP actually have a chance to defeat Barack Obama in 2012, as well as anyone who doesn’t think that someone with a meager resume and a record of quitting her job when the going gets tough sitting anywhere near the Oval Office. Whether anyone will listen is another question.

Update: Rick Moran weighs in and points out, correctly I think, that underestimating Palin would be a mistake for the GOP:

The more the pollsters, the media, and the left ask how anyone can seriously consider Palin for the highest office in the land, the more her stock rises with ordinary voters. The more establishment Republicans tip-toe around her obvious limitations, the more she is lionized by the anti-establishment tea party types and online conservative elites who see her as something of an American savior, if not the personification of the conservative cause.

For those who say she has no chance, I have two words for you; Barack Obama. Not surprisingly, Palin has compared her own desert-like resume with Obama’s puffed up qualifications and found the president’s experience similar to her own. We’re not going to refight that battle here, but suffice it to say both lack the kind of depth of experience Americans were used to in choosing a chief executive. If anything, President Obama is proving that being book smart is not the same as being capable of heading a smart government, or developing smart policies.

(…)

The disaster that would flow from that course of action for both the right, and the GOP would make 2008 look like a picnic. It would be irresponsible to nominate Sarah Palin (and Mike Huckabee and a few others). It would prove that the GOP and conservatives are unserious about addressing the monumental problems in America by putting forward someone who everyone but Palin disciples believe is a lightweight for the highest office in the land.

The punishment meted out by the electorate would be well deserved.

Indeed.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Politicians, Sarah Palin, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. michael reynolds says:

    Time for the GOP to man up? There is no GOP without Palinites and Tea Partiers.  How long until guys like you and James figure out that you don’t have a party anymore?  Without the nuts your party is nothing but a few think tanks and a gaggle of indifferent pols no longer possessed of a single, teeny, tiny shred of a plan aside from “Oppose Obama.”

  2. rodney dill says:

    Maybe the Dem’s should man up and take on Obama.

  3. michael reynolds says:

    As a matter of fact, I offer a challenge.  I’d love to see you and/or James explain in a blog post why you are a Republican.  I propose as ground rules that you would do so in positive ways, as opposed to relying on contrast with the Dems.  And that your answers would have to be realistic given what we know of your party’s current make-up and attitudes.

  4. john personna says:

    Interesting.  I think it’s been said more than once that the GOP needed someone high-profile, but not running, to take on Palin.  Perhaps Scarborough has even mentioned that on his show.
     
    I guess he finally decided “why not me?” and it seems he’s having fun with it.
     

  5. ponce says:

    Too bad all the decent Republicans already left the party.

  6. michael,
    I don’t consider myself a Republican, although I may vote for Republicans far more often than Democrats based simply on the fact that there is very little about the Democratic Party that a libertarian can support

  7. michael reynolds says:

    Doug:  Fair enough.  Didn’t know that.  Ego te absolvo. (SFX: Chanting.)

  8. Davebo says:

    “I may vote for Republicans far more often than Democrats based simply on the fact that there is very little about the Democratic Party that a libertarian can support”
     
    I’m with you there Doug.   What libertarian could support warrantless wiretaps or state sanctioned torture .   And doubling the national debt in just 8 years?  Not very libertarian either.

  9. Davebo,
    No, and I haven’t supported the GOP much thanks to the disaster that was the Bush Administration

  10. Tano says:

    I haven’t supported the GOP much thanks to the disaster that was the Bush Administration

     
    And yet you idolize Reagan who only tripled the national debt???? Or was it quadrupled?

  11. Bernieyeball says:

    “…despite the fact that the 44th president breezed into the Oval Office as little more than a glorified state senator.”
    Since when does the President get this much respect from critics?
    I thought he was a community organizer from Kenya!

  12. Steve Plunk says:

    I’m don’t support Palin as a presidential candidate but the Democrats have been taking her on for a couple of years without results so why should the Republicans take her on?  What Scarborough doesn’t get is why the GOP establishment lost the trust of those who support Palin.  It’s the spending stupid.

  13. Terrye says:

    The other day I mentioned to a big Palin supporter that I liked Mitch Daniels. I live in Indiana and he has been a good Governor during a difficult time. Of course I was told that Daniels was a squish and a RINO and that people like Daniels and myself were wrecking the country blah blah blah.
    I think Palin would be better off if some of her more ardent supporters would ease up. They have such a sense of the woman’s inevitability that I don’t think that either she or they are prepared for the reality of her running for President.
    The truth is I liked Sarah Palin a lot more 2 years ago than I do today. But I do think that she has a real gift when it comes to gathering strong and loyal people to her side. Those Palinistas really love the woman and believe in her. To them there can be only one and she is it…and that means everyone else, Romney, Daniels, Christie etc are the enemy. And so are the people who would consider supporting them.

  14. Terrye says:

    Steve:
    No, it is not just the spending. Like I said, there are plenty of Republicans out there like Mitch Daniels who have a real record of spending cuts and the Palinistas hate them all. It is a cult of personality that goes far beyond fiscal conservatism.

  15. Terrye says:

    Doug, I liked George Bush and respected him. I thought he had to deal with some really difficult problems that a lot of other people were lucky enough to avoid. He and Truman had that in common.
     

  16. john personna says:

    Steve, isn’t the fear that she’ll “Christine O’Donnell” the Republican primary?
     
    Even if she loses that primary should be costly to the winner.  You want the nominee most likely to defeat Obama, not the nominee most likely to please the rightmost 10% of the electorate.

  17. john personna says:

    Terrye, George H.W. Bush was underrated, but George W. Bush really should have been avoided.  Perhaps it is similar to the Palin story.  At what point does winning with the wrong person really become counterproductive?

  18. Kylopod says:

    >I’m don’t support Palin as a presidential candidate but the Democrats have been taking her on for a couple of years without results
    Her poll numbers would suggest otherwise.

  19. narciso says:

    I liked W as well, he didn’t promise to be a great budget cutter, or immigration hawk, he was solid on a few major issues. Daniels is fine, just many of his most fervent supporters do have this tendency to slight her excessively, dismissing any of her efforts these last two years, Scarborough is a poor vehicle for this opposition, because he was one of those who accepted this flimsy portrayal of Obama. Nicxon was despised even though he went along with much of the Dem’s domestic agenda, Ford was derided, for similar reasons, George HW likewise.

  20. Smooth Jazz says:

    Good grief Dude. Yesterday you were quoting rigged PPP/DailyKOS polls. Today you are hiving up a pseudo Repub who works for MSNBC, a Palin Hating network, whose cohost is Mika Bryzynski, a Katie Couric type left wing zealot. Oh well, I guess you needed your PDS fix today, and giving shelf space to MSNBC types accommodates your anti-Palin obsession for today.
     
    I’ll keep repeating the same thing until I get banned from this forum: Palin should have her opportunity to demonstrate whether she is up to to the task, like every other candidate in the race. For bloggers at OTB, or Joe Scarborough, or elite Repubs or left wing haters to tell her to shut up and go home, is absurd. If she competes and holds her own on the stump and in the debates, she could very well win the Repub nomination. And if she wins the Repub nomination, that would suggest she has demonstrated enough heft to convinve people she can be President. If she stumbles and bumbles, I don’t think Repub voters will allow her to win the nomination. Trying to tell us that polls in 2010 or Palin Haters at Liberal cable networks are barometers of how Gov Palin will perform and how voters will perceive her 2 years from now is self serving reinforcement of an internal bias.
     
    The Libs keep asking for her to join the fray because they are sure she will be defeated. Joe Scarborough should back off so his friends at MSNBC can get their favored candidate against Obomba.

  21. Terrye says:

    john:
    I don’t consider Bush the wrong person. He never said anything he did not mean and he never pretended to be anything he was not. He had a lot on his plate and he did what he thought was best. I realize that there are people out there who think that everything from the meltdown to Katrina to the bad intel on Iraq could have been avoided if only someone brilliant like themselves was running the country..but in real life that is not how it works.
    I think a  lot of the criticism Bush took was gratuitous back stabbing from people who were not half as smart as they think they are.

  22. Terrye says:

    smooth jazz:
    The truth is a lot of Republicans feel like Palin is a problem because they don’t think she can win. It is not personal, they don’t hate her or anything.

  23. Terrye says:

    narciso:
     
    I like Daniels, but I don’t think he can win. His personality is just not that compelling. But that does not mean he is a squish or a RINO or whatever.

  24. john personna says:

    See, I don’t believe it was bad intel on Iraq.  I believe the Downing Street Memos were true, but that we all just pretend they were not.  There was a Neocon agenda, and intelligence was fixed around the policy.
     
    On tax cuts and lack of growth, how brilliant would it be to “when it hurts, stop doing it?”
     
    GBW’s tenure was a success of ideology over reality.  It was not governed by the sort of prudence we had with his father.

  25. john personna says:

    “I’ll keep repeating the same thing until I get banned from this forum: Palin should have her opportunity to demonstrate whether she is up to to the task, like every other candidate in the race.”
     
    Oh yeah, let’s give her “President” as a starter office.
     
    No that’s not fair, she has almost completed a reality show as preparation.

  26. Davebo says:

    “And yet you idolize Reagan who only tripled the national debt???? Or was it quadrupled?”
     
    Actually compared to Dubya, Reagan was a piker and debt creation.   Though he may have doubled the debt, the starting point was much lower so doubling it wasn’t that hard.

  27. Terrye says:

    john:
    Oh please, the Downing Street Memo? Really?
    Odd, I can remember seeing Bill Clinton on TV with Tom Daschle standing next to him as Bill Clinton informed the nation that not only did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction, he would use them…mark my words the man said. I can also remember General Zinni saying in February 2000 that the US faced a far greater threat from Saddam Hussein than any other state out there. Bush was not responsible for the intel he inherited and to be honest, I think that if they had known then what they know now they would have used a different approach. I am not saying there would not have been a military invasion of Iraq, but I do not think that any administration would knowingly damage its own credibility in that way.

  28. Terrye says:

    Davebo:
     
    No that is not true. The Reagan administration {and of course Congress} ran large deficits for much of his time in office. You can not make the comparison with Bush in terms just of the dollars, if you look at money spent in terms of comparison to overall GDP or debt in terms of overall GDP, Bush was actually below Reagan in some years of his time in office.
    When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, halfway through Bush’s second term, the deficit was $167 billion..now we run more than that in a day. And the money put into TARP when Bush was in office has been paid back.
    Reagan actually made deficit spending acceptable and when he left office the federal government was bigger than it was when he got there. But he was Reagan and he is always judged by a different standard than other Presidents.

  29. Smooth Jazz says:

    <Oh yeah, let’s give her “President” as a starter office.>
     
    WTF??? Did you even bother to read my post. I am not giving anything to Gov Palin unless she earns it.
     
    All I am saying is that she should get the same opportunity is the part time senator, comunity organizer now masquerading as President. If she doesn’t cut it, then primary and/or general election voters will judge her based on her performance during the campaign.
     
    Are you saying she should just shut up and go home now. If so, why she should and why should Romney stay home. Why should she be told to stay home.  I don’t get it.

  30. Trumwill says:

    I propose as ground rules that you would do so in positive ways, as opposed to relying on contrast with the Dems.

    Republican or Democrat, aren’t contrasts important, though? Sometimes you make a decision based on the less undesirable options. A lot of the comments to this post, about how all of the Reasonable Republicans left, are a testament to this. The implication is that they veer Democratic because the Republicans are so danged unreasonable.
     
    I am less than wholly satisfied with the “side” that I am on. But I would be more unsatisfied with the other side. And so I stay put, for the most part (I’m a cross-ticket voter, but vote 2/3 in a particular direction).

  31. Steve Plunk says:

    Terrye, Very good points.  I mention the spending as the main reason many conservatives gave up on establishment Republicans.  There are plenty of good candidates out there just as you say and let’s hope they get noticed.
     
    Smooth Jazz,  I see exactly what you are saying.  Let the process work through the primaries and quit trying to throw Palin out of the country club before then.  She has a right to be there like any other citizen.

  32. michael reynolds says:

    Trumwill:
     
    Better than the other guys only works if you believe in a closed system where a different party is an impossibility.  In any case, my point was to ask Republicans to look at what they believe to be important, and then at their party, and recognize that there is in effect no overlap.
     
    I’ll offer my short version as a Dem:  I believe we need a reasonable social safety net, and need to pay for the government, must extend full equality to all Americans, and can afford to reduce defense spending.  The Democratic Party generally overlaps with me on all of those — not perfectly, but basically.  And the Democrats generally act in ways that indicate they agree on those four points.
     
    Can a genuine someone like Joyner show that degree of alignment with the GOP?  I don’t think so, because I don’t think the GOP has any core beliefs other than hating Obama and servicing their client groups.  The GOP is not plausibly in favor of “small government.”  They are not plausibly in favor of “individual liberty.”

  33. Trumwill says:

    Better than the other guys only works if you believe in a closed system where a different party is an impossibility.
     
    I’m not sure I understand this. A closed system where a different (presumably third) party (winning in elections) is an impossibility is kind of what we have?

  34. michael reynolds says:

    It’s not an impossibility.  Te Republican Party used to be a third party.

  35. An Interested Party says:

    “I’m don’t support Palin as a presidential candidate but the Democrats have been taking her on for a couple of years without results so why should the Republicans take her on?”
    You’re confused…pointing at her and laughing is not the same thing as “taking her on”… 
    “Palin should have her opportunity to demonstrate whether she is up to to the task, like every other candidate in the race.”
    And Democrats wholeheartedly agree with you!  It’s Republicans and other conservatives/libertarians who are worried/scared of her…
    Oh, by the way, the defense of Bush II is really heartwarming…
     

  36. anjin-san says:

    > Obomba.
     
    Anyone told you today that you are an ass?

  37. anjin-san says:

    > Let the process work through the primaries and quit trying to throw Palin out of the country club
     
    Interesting choice of words.
     
    Exactly what amount of respect did Palin show to the last public office she held and the people who put here there? Oh yea, she quit. No one had to throw here out, she walked through the exit under her own power because there was a lot of money waiting for her after she did so.

  38. Michael says:

    And the Republican nominating process, specifically designed to give a huge advantage to early frontrunners by awarding delegates on a winner-take-all basis, could have the perverse effect of nominating the candidate that a majority thinks would be a disaster.

    I wonder if it’s too late to change that for the 2012 primaries.  That would be the easiest, least confrontational way to significantly reduce her chances of securing the nomination.  I know there was much criticism of the Democratic party’s distribution rules, but you can’t say that the prolonged fight didn’t make Obama a better candidate in the general election.

  39. Trumwill says:

    It’s not an impossibility.  Te Republican Party used to be a third party.

    Tis a different world. It would take decades of losses and an absolute refusal to budge on the issues to dismantle either of the two parties, which would be required for a new one to be born from the rubble. If FDR and the Great Depression couldn’t do it, I don’t think anything can.
     
    When the Republican coalition falls apart (and I have to think it will), what comes next will call itself the Republican Party. Maybe Joyner will be a Democrat by then, depending on what comes next.
     
    Whenever I was younger and wanted to know what I was, I went to the Sorting Hat (errr, a few of those online quizzes) and invariably came up with the Natural Law Party. If they ever come back to make a serious run at it, I am totally there (certain kookeries aside). In the meantime, it’s donkeys and elephants.

  40. Trumwill says:

    I wonder if it’s too late to change that for the 2012 primaries.
     
    I could have sworn I read somewhere that the GOP was looking at requiring states with a primary before a certain date to change over to proportional. But I can’t seem to find any references to it. I thought I followed the link to the article from the comment section here (I almost always follow John Personna’s links, so maybe it was him).
     
    Does anyone have a clue of what I am talking about? Or am I smoking something?

  41. Don L says:

    Golly, I don’t remember in all my years of voting (Ike was the first) any potential candidate so feared by both parties. If Rove and the GOP had put out half of the effort they’re using on destroying their own (Sarah) on Obama, we wouldn’t be where we are, but then, it’s not really about anything but their having and keeping control. The GOP elite and the “fiscal conservative” elite have proven to me that they will be willing to live with all the Obama’s of the wolrld rather than allow a Palin in there. 
    Her crime (not inexperience please -not quitter please, Reagan left Lebanon after the marines were killed) It is because she is not the approved one- and that business of guns, God and family values,, and having a less than perfect child(that abortion thing) -and mostley -because she radiates honesty that they hate her (plus a bit of that old fashioned male superiority)  

  42. sam says:

    “-because she radiates honesty ”
     
    Well, you know, that reminds me of George Burns’s adage: “The secret of acting is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

  43. Terrye says:

    Don:
    What has Rove done to destroy Palin?  No one said she committed a crime of any kind for heavens sake. This is the kind of hysterical response from Palin’s supporters that make it so hard to have a rational conversation about the woman. All Rove did was speak his mind when it came to some of the things Palin has said, he was a lot more critical of Obama than he ever was of Palin.

  44. Kylopod says:

    “because she radiates honesty”
    Don L,
    In Oct. 2008, Alaska lawmakers released a report which concluded that “Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating…the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.” Those were the report’s exact words:
    http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132625
    When asked about the report in an interview, she stated that the report had “cleared [her] of any legal wrongdoing…any hint of any kind of unethical activity.” Here is the interview:
    http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132565
    Please explain to me how describing a report as saying the EXACT opposite of what it states in plain English is an example of radiating honesty.

  45. Kylopod says:

    Sorry, the links I included are in the wrong order.

  46. rodney dill says:

    Don L,
    The left is fearful of Palin because she generates the same blind, mindless attraction to some conservatives that Obama did for the majority of liberals.

  47. sam says:

    “The left is fearful of Palin because she generates the same blind, mindless attraction ”
     
    Tsk, tsk. Were that all there is to it. I’m fearful of her because I detect in her a vicious, vindictive streak that makes Richard Nixon look like St. Francis. I fear her because I believe if she ever got her hands on the police power of the state, she’d bring all that power to bear on her “enemies”.  I fear her because she’s honed her “I’m a victim” persona to such a fine edge that the impulse to punish those who she thinks have dissed her would be irresistible. Frankly, she scares the shit out me.

  48. bandit says:

    You gotta love teevee hosts with the macho posturing. A little sexist Joe?

  49. narciso says:

    Actually the Petumenos report cleared her, as she has of the 26 other ethics complaints that were filed against her, including the legal defense fund, to defend her from the ethic complaints. That was her rivals, using the power of the state, to bankrupt her,

  50. john personna says:

    “Oh please, the Downing Street Memo? Really?”
     
    The Downing Street Memos were simply true.  Not dealing with them is the problem.
     
    “Odd, I can remember seeing Bill Clinton on TV with Tom Daschle …”
     
    First of all, keep your timelines straight.  That was earlier and resulted in the entirely appropriate UN arms inspections.  Second, it did not result in full blown land wars.

  51. john personna says:

    “WTF??? Did you even bother to read my post. I am not giving anything to Gov Palin unless she earns it.”
     
    I think I get it, because you make the same suggestion below: “All I am saying is that she should get the same opportunity is the part time senator, comunity organizer now masquerading as President. If she doesn’t cut it, then primary and/or general election voters will judge her based on her performance during the campaign.”
     
    Right, no real jobs, just running as a television personality.  Her first real job, run to completion (hopefully) would be President.
     
    Unless she quits.

  52. Kylopod says:

    @narciso says:

    “Actually the Petumenos report cleared her”

    The Petumenos report didn’t come out until Nov. 2008. The report in which she claimed she had been “cleared of any [legal or ethical] wrongdoings” was the Branchflower report from October, which in fact had found her guilty of violating an ethics act.

    Don L claims that Palin “radiates honesty,” and I wanted to know how he reconciles that claim with the fact that she mischaracterized the Branchflower report.

  53. narciso says:

    She was well within her authority to do so, a partisan hack job from reps who were subsequently rewarded in one case, with overseeing Alaskan affairs at Interior, doesn’t really count.

  54. Kylopod says:

    <p>@narciso</p><p>You haven’t answered my question. I pointed out that she mischaracterized the Branchflower report, and I asked Don L how he reconciles that fact with his claim that she “radiates honesty.” Palin didn’t say, “The Branchflower report is a partisan hack job making false accusations of ethical abuse against me.” She said that the report had “cleared [her] of any legal wrongdoing…any hint of any kind of unethical activity,” which in fact the report did not do. Are you seriously disputing the fact that she mischaracterized the report? If so, I’d love to hear your rationale.<br></p>

  55. jukeboxgrad says:

    <i>she radiates honesty</i>
     
    You’re joking, right? She’s a pathological liar. A mountain of proof is easy to find, but a good place to start is here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/four_pinocchios_for_palin.html
     
    This is the same example Kylopod referenced, but explained in more detail.
     
    <i>Actually the Petumenos report cleared her</i>
     
    As Kylopod has patiently tried to explain, you’re mixing up two separate issues. Yes, there were two reports (Branchflower and Petumenos). Yes, one cleared her and one did not. But that is not what was pointed out to you. What was pointed out to you is that she made a false statement regarding the Branchflower report.
     
    Aside from that, the Petumenos report is a joke. I demonstrated that a long time ago, here:
     
    http://volokh.com/posts/1225811385.shtml#476336
     
    All the revelant facts about Troopergate can be found via here:
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal
     
    When you look at those facts, it’s obvious that the Branchflower report is credible and the Petumenos report is not. Petumenos was hired by a board that Palin controls. Petumenos had previously done business with Palin.
     
    And aside from the lie that Kylopod referenced, she told numerous other lies in connection with Troopergate, which are documented here:
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal#Areas_of_possible_factual_inconsistency
     
    Most of those lies have been overlooked by the ‘lamestream media.’ Those darn liberals.
     
    <i>She was well within her authority to do so</i>
     
    Once again your are missing the point. Yes, Branchflower found that “she was well within her authority” to fire Monegan. However, he also found, and demonstrated conclusively, that she abused her power by pressuring him to fire Wooten. And the facts show that she lied about this over and over again.
     
    <i>a partisan hack job … That was her rivals, using the power of the state, to bankrupt her</i>
     
    Pay no attention to the fact that the committee which decided (unanimously) to hire Branchflower to investigate her was made up of four Ds and 8 Rs:
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal#Investigations_and_reviews
     
    Sorry to confuse you with the facts.

  56. John425 says:

    Perhaps Scarborough ought to man up and admit that he has moved leftwards from RINO to Democrat-Lite.

  57. john personna says:

    “Perhaps Scarborough ought to man up and admit that he has moved leftwards from RINO to Democrat-Lite.”
     

    Welcome to small tent Republicanism.

  58. Louis Wheeler says:

    Scarborough is an idiot. It’s too soon to know who the front runners are and what issues the election will turn around. It’s too soon to try to run people from the field.

    Why would Sarah Palin leave if she got a good reception in the early primaries? And what qualifications do Scarborough and Doug Mataconis have to be able to judge her electability? I’ve never hear either build a good case against her. Her accomplishments as a school board president, mayor, oil commissioner and Governor are greater than many of her opponents. Furthermore there is her character; Americans like character and grit in their elected officials. Sarah Palin has cheerfully withstood more abuse than any politician in living memory. Once you get past the lies, smears and distortions, she sounds rather reasonable and commonsense.

    Perhaps it is time for the electorate to choose a common person rather than one of the elites. You don’t need a rocket scientist to be president of the US. Only an elitist would think you must. Maybe we need another Harry Truman in office. Old Harry did all right; much better than the people thought smarter than he. He kept the Russians from taking over Europe and set the terms for the Cold War which another common man, Ronald Reagan, won.

    Why should Sarah Palin listen to you Country Club, blue blood, old fogies? When have you lead the Republican Party or the country toward success? The current leaders are all RINOs. Sarah is just as opposed to the current Republican leadership as she is to the Democrats. She is a Conservative, not really a Republican. If the Republican party leaders don’t pay attention during this election, then the TEA party will abscond with the electorate and start a new party without the Republicans.

  59. Kylopod says:

    @Louis Wheeler

    Once again, I must ask, since no Palin defender has given me a straight answer as of yet: If Palin has such great “character,” then how do you explain the fact that she blatantly mischaracterized the conclusions of the Branchflower ethics report in Oct. 2008?

    “I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there.” — Sarah Palin, reacting to Branchflower Report
    http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132625

    “Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating…the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.” — Branchflower Report
    http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132565

    “…again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all.” — Sarah Palin, after interviewer pointed out to her that the Branchflower report stated she violated an ethics law
    http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132625

  60. jukeboxgrad says:

    Kylopod, I’ve asked the same question many times, in many places, and of course no Palin supporter has ever given me a straight answer. Typically they run away, as Don L did and as Louis Wheeler probably will.

    If someone is a Palin supporter, then most likely their ability to deny reality is comparable to hers.

  61. Kylopod says:

    @jukeboxgrad

    I’ve also asked it many times, and I can’t say I’m expecting a straight answer. In fact, the responses are almost robotically predictable. But that doesn’t stop it from fascinating me. I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered a political faction so pathetically unable to defend itself. It’s almost a wonder of nature.

  62. Louis Wheeler says:

    Kylopod, people are considered innocent in this country until they are proven guilty. Where is the proof? Yes, tons of accusations have been brought against Sarah Palin, but accusations are not proof. The accusations brought before the ethics commission have not been held up. The personal opinions of its minority members are worthless.

    All this proves that powerful people, in both the Alaskan republican and democrat party, would love to dismiss her. They would love to convict her, but none of their accusations have been substantiated. And a biased press will not report that. Instead, Sarah has sent corrupt politicians of both parties to jail. That is why you hate her.

    Where is proof that she abused her powers as Governor? She has been charged with no crimes. She has not been fined or imprisoned, nor is she likely to be. Absent any proof which would stand up in court, then she must be considered an honest woman who has very powerful enemies.

    I don’t have to prove that she is honest. You must prove that she is not and you have failed. You are simply not honest enough to admit your errors. You dredge up charges answered long ago. In Short, your head is so far up your butt that you think you can see daylight, but it is light creeping around your tonsils.

    Jukeboxgrad, I haven’t run away. I just have a busy life. I don’t have much time to waste on idiots. You sound like someone who isn’t intellectually honest enough to admit it when you are proved wrong.

  63. Kylopod says:

    @Louis Wheeler

    >I don’t have to prove that she is honest. You must prove that she is not

    Er….I just did. For about the fifth time in this thread. And not one Palin defender has addressed the evidence I provided. Like you, they’ve all ignored it.

    >You dredge up charges answered long ago.

    The only “charge” I made was that Palin lied about the Branchflower report, and I backed this charge up with a direct quote from her and from the report. If this was “answered long ago,” then why is not a single Palin defender here or anywhere else able to provide that answer?

    Of course, you are free to prove me wrong and explain in plain English why her statement wasn’t a lie. If you don’t, then I’ll be forced to stick by my conclusions that Palin defenders are pathetically unable to, well, defend Sarah Palin.

  64. jukeboxgrad says:

    Louis, you’re completely missing the point. As Kylopod has patiently explained, Palin made a false statement about the Branchflower report. And this is a separate issue from the question of whether or not Branchflower’s conclusions were correct. Branchflower found that Palin abused her power. And then Palin did not respond by saying that Branchflower was wrong. Palin responded by claiming that Branchflower cleared her. Trouble is, he didn’t. When Palin claimed that Branchflower cleared her, she was telling a brazen, transparent lie.

    One more time: it doesn’t matter whether you think Branchflower was right or wrong. The problem is that Palin falsely claimed that Branchflower cleared her. Trouble is, he didn’t. Even if Branchflower’s conclusion was incorrect, it was still a lie for Palin to claim that Branchflower reached a conclusion that was not the actual conclusion that Branchflower actually reached.

    If you can’t grasp this, I can’t imagine how you get your pants on in the morning. As is often the case in a situation like this, it’s hard to tell if you’re thick or dishonest. Probably both.

  65. Louis Wheeler says:

    You have no proof of wrong doing, Kylopod. What you have is the Branchflower report and it is pure allegation. It is the opinion of a consultant who is not an officer of a court. Therefor, it has no legal standing, any more than your opinion or mine.

    If sufficient wrong doing was substantiated, why was this matter not forwarded to the Alaskan Attorney General? Did Sarah Palin want Trooper Wooton dismissed? Probably, she did. Were her reasons personal or professional? Who knows? Can you read her mind?

    Trooper Wooton should have been brought forward to answer the charges against him, but that didn’t happen either. So far as I can see, Sarah Palin’s malice was insufficient to do him harm. Hence, Sarah Palin received no benefit of a personal or financial nature through official action, therefore, no proof exists that Sarah abused her authority. The case is null. You and Branchflower need to take a course in logic. You don’t have a smoking gun.

    Second, Commissioner Walt Monegan served at the pleasure of the Governor, so he could be dismissed for any reason, or no reason at all. It is a leap faith on your part that the true cause was revenge because Monegan would not fire Wooton. This rationale is absurd, because Wooton was not dismissed by Monegan’s replacement either, was he? Was Monegan’s replacement fired, too? Not so far as I remember. This is a very weak argument. It doesn’t matter what reason Sarah had for firing Monegan; this was in her authority. She didn’t need just cause, because Monegan’s post was ephemeral. Monegan had been appointed by a previously corrupt, Republican governor. Sarah could have just been getting rid of the dead wood.

    Reason number three is no reason against Sarah at all. It says that she did not involve herself in Wooton’s workers’ compensation claim, so there was no possible abuse of power.

    Reason number four is troubling, as well. A failure of the attorney general to respond to Branchflower’s request for information, is not proof that Sarah intervened to squash it.

    In Short, the case that Branchflower built is nonexistent. And you are a fool for believing his groundless slurs.

    “The only “charge” I made was that Palin lied about the Branchflower report, and I backed this charge up with a direct quote from her and from the report. “

    What was the lie, Kylopod? Whenever someone is being investigated and no legal findings are held or indictments presented, then the person is exonerated — found blameless. Sarah ignored Branchflower as being irrelevant, as she should have, since he had no actionable position.

    ” If this was “answered long ago,” then why is not a single Palin defender here or anywhere else able to provide that answer?”

    It is not necessary to reply to absurdity. You must prove a case against Sarah. All I must do is say that you have not.

    I am not defending Sarah, since it appears that there is no case against her, just groundless propaganda which you are repeating.

  66. Louis Wheeler says:

    Jukeboxgrad, Branchflower had no power to clear her, he merely was a consultant. His opinion had no legal standing. It was the Ethics Commission which was empowered by law, not Branchflower. The Ethics Commission exonerated Sarah, by ignoring Branchflower, so why shouldn’t she?

    Sarah Palin had no reason to comment on Branchflower’s report; this was merely an internal memo for commission members. What mattered was the commission’s findings to dismiss all allegations against her, including Branchflower’s.

    You need to recheck your medication: you are not thinking clearly.

  67. jukeboxgrad says:

    “What you have is the Branchflower report and it is pure allegation.”

    Baloney. Branchflower documented his findings. You should try reading the report.

    “Trooper Wooton should have been brought forward to answer the charges against him”

    Nice job proving you’re not familiar with basic facts. There was a thorough police investigation of Wooten, which led to him being suspended.

    “Monegan had been appointed by a previously corrupt, Republican governor. Sarah could have just been getting rid of the dead wood.”

    More proof of how ignorant you are. Monegan was appointed by Palin.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal#Contacts_between_Governor.27s_office_and_Wooten.27s_supervisors

    “Did Sarah Palin want Trooper Wooton dismissed? Probably, she did. Were her reasons personal or professional?”

    This should give you a clue:

    Although the Taser incident happened in 2003, it was not reported to police until on or after April 11, 2005, the day McCann filed for divorce. On June 6, 2005, a police investigator asked Bristol why they “waited so long and brought the incident up after two years.” Bristol said “because of the divorce and stuff”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal#Taser_incident

    “Palin received no benefit of a personal or financial nature through official action”

    Palin was trying to give her sister an advantage in the custody battle between her and Wooten.

    “Whenever someone is being investigated and no legal findings are held or indictments presented, then the person is exonerated — found blameless.”

    Branchflower found that Palin abused her power and violated Alaska’s ethics law. You have an odd concept of “blameless.”

    “Sarah ignored Branchflower as being irrelevant”

    Except that she didn’t ignore what he said. Instead, she made a false statement about what he said.

    “Sarah Palin had no reason to comment on Branchflower’s report”

    But she did comment on Branchflower’s report. And her comment was a lie.

  68. Kylopod says:

    >Whenever someone is being investigated and no legal findings are held or indictments presented, then the person is exonerated — found blameless. Sarah ignored Branchflower as being irrelevant, as she should have, since he had no actionable position.

    Ah! Good one. So when Sarah claimed to have been “cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity,” she wasn’t referring to the Branchflower report that had come out a day earlier and was the subject of the interview. Instead, she was saying that the state’s Ethics Commission had effectively cleared her by not immediately jumping into the case. She didn’t need to refer to this Ethics Commission by name, because that should have been absurdly obvious.

    Convenient thing, that passive voice, huh? She said she had been cleared, she didn’t say who cleared her. For instance, she didn’t say something like, “I’m thankful that the report has shown that there was no illegal or unethical activity there.”

    Oh, wait….

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/palin-denies-abuse-of-authority-in-trooper-case/

  69. Louis Wheeler says:

    Jesus, Jukeboxgrad, This is nuts.

    I read Branchflower’s report. It is nonsense — pure speculation. Very long and boring speculation without a smoking gun, at that.

    Sarah Palin may have been tempted to abuse her powers as Governor, but I saw nothing in Branchflower’s report which proved that she did.

    “There was a thorough police investigation of Wooten, which led to him being suspended.”

    Trooper Wooton could have gone to jail for some of the things he was accused of. A suspension was a slap on the wrist.

    “More proof of how ignorant you are. Monegan was appointed by Palin.”

    Sorry, my mistake. Then, Sarah was just correcting HER mistake by dismissing Monegan? What’s wrong with that?

    You have no idea how trivial a matter this is to me. You seem obsessive about it.

    ““Palin received no benefit of a personal or financial nature through official action”

    Palin was trying to give her sister an advantage in the custody battle between her and Wooten.”

    Do you have proof of this? Or is this more speculation? Tasering his stepson could be proof of very poor judgement on Wooton’s part. Divorces are messy; both sides hurl arguments trying to gain advantage.

    How is that any of Sarah’s fault? You need better proof that Sarah abused her official powers. You don’t have anything but speculation.

    “Branchflower found that Palin abused her power and violated Alaska’s ethics law. You have an odd concept of “blameless.””

    What power or authority did Branchflower have? Was Branchflower a judge? Could he have sent Sarah to Jail?

    What I have read says that he was a consultant for the Ethics Commission; his report was for their internal use only. It was the Ethics Commission which found Sarah blameless by dismissing all charges.

    ““Sarah ignored Branchflower as being irrelevant”

    Except that she didn’t ignore what he said. Instead, she made a false statement about what he said.”

    So. she might have been mistaken and said the wrong thing. People make mistakes all the time.

    I have no idea what she believed, but you are turning a possible error into an intentional lie. I see no proof of that. She has the presumption of innocence. Your case against her is impossibly weak.

    All this proves is your bias.

  70. Louis Wheeler says:

    Kylopad, innocent people often make errors of this kind. If she knew that she hadn’t done anything wrong, and that Branchflower was unable to substantiate any charges, then the fact that he was unable to, proved that she was cleared. Branchflower’s opinion was against her, but he had not a shed of evidence which would stand up in court.

    Sarah Palin is quite used to having people make unsubstantiated charges against her; stupid stuff like her not being Trig’s mother, for instance. As a Christian, she forgives them; that is what keeps her sane. Mostly, she ignores the charges. When asked about them, she will say why the people are wrong and what her opinion is.

    This sums up to the fact that Sarah apparently forgave Branchflower for believing that she had abused her official powers, but she saw that he had no legal case against her and took that as her being cleared. This is not an unusual conclusion for her to make.

    The fact that she is wrong is not proof that she lied. She could really believe that she was cleared.

  71. Louis Wheeler says:

    I suspect that Sarah Palin saw Branchflower’s report as being nothing but politics. Your accusations are nothing but politics, either.

    You have to remember how Sarah’s enemies were using the Ethics Commission against her. This was a very bad law which was heavily biased in the accuser’s favor. Anyone could file the most absurd charges against her, while she and the Alaskan government were required to take them seriously. Sarah was being personally bankrupted by being forced to hire investigators and lawyers to defend herself.

    Both sides of a dispute before the Ethics Commission were supposed to keep quiet, but the accuser lost nothing by going immediately to the Press, so they did. Sarah was forced to keep silent, by law. A Hostile Media used her silence as proof that the accusations were true.

    In the end, the Ethics Commission dismissed all charges against her. She had to give up being Governor, because these groundless accusations cost her half a million dollars in legal fees. Why shouldn’t Sarah feel vindicated when no one could find anything substantial against her? Despite this absurd law, the burden of proof was on the accuser.

    Branchflower could say that he believed that she had abused her official powers, but he did not have proof which would stand up in a court. His report was a long and boring tissue of speculation which never came close to providing a Smoking Gun. If Sarah had abused her official powers, then Branchflower should have found it. The fact that he failed, proved that Sarah had been very careful not to break the law. Moreover, the weakness of Branchflower’s argument says that Sarah had bent over backwards to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

    The two of you can believe Branchflower’s conclusion only because you have political motivations.

    The Ethics commission vindicated her. Why is that not enough?

  72. jukeboxgrad says:

    If Sarah had abused her official powers, then Branchflower should have found it.

    Branchflower did find that she “had abused her official powers.” Your ability to deny reality is just like hers.

    The fact that she is wrong is not proof that she lied.

    Except that she made the “wrong” statement on more than one occasion, and she kept making it even when a reporter pointed out to her that her statement was wrong.

    See here:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/four_pinocchios_for_palin.html
    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/palin-denies-abuse-of-authority-in-trooper-case/

    These links have already been provided, but you obviously intend to ignore them, just like Palin ignored what Branchflower actually said.

    If repeating her “wrong” statement under these circumstances can be interpreted as something other than a lie, that means you have the capacity to interpret any lie as something other than a lie.

    And Palin told a bunch of other lies in connection with Troopergate. They are documented here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal#Areas_of_possible_factual_inconsistency

    For example, Palin said that Wooten abused her sister even though her sister told police that Wooten never abused her. Palin also said that a court found that Wooten was violent and abusive even the court found the opposite of that. But I’m sure you have the magical ability to view these falsehoods as something other than defamatory lies.

    The Ethics commission vindicated her.

    Alaska has no “Ethics commision.” Nice job proving, again, that you’re unfamiliar with basic facts.

  73. Kylopod says:

    >If she knew that she hadn’t done anything wrong, and that Branchflower was unable to substantiate any charges, then the fact that he was unable to, proved that she was cleared.

    That’s not what the verb “to clear” means. It means to declare someone not guilty. It doesn’t mean to fail to substantiate charges against someone. That certainly isn’t in the dictionary, and I’ve never heard of anyone using the word in that way.

    >but she saw that he had no legal case against her and took that as her being cleared

    That makes no sense at all. A report which states that “Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating…the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act” is by definition not clearing her of legal or ethical charges.

    >The fact that she is wrong is not proof that she lied.

    But she continued to insist she had been cleared even after the interviewer told her that the report had concluded she violated an ethics law. She denied an objective fact that was right in front of her, so it couldn’t have been ignorance.

    I should note that so far you’ve given me three completely contradictory answers to explain away Palin’s bizarre lie. You have said:

    1) When Palin claimed to have been “cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity,” she wasn’t referring to the Branchflower report but to the fact that the Ethics Commission didn’t immediately step in.

    2) Palin was referring to the Branchflower report, but the charges were unproven and therefore she was “cleared.”

    3) The Branchflower report didn’t clear her, but Palin made the honest mistake of thinking it did.

    I eagerly await your next explanation.

    >The two of you can believe Branchflower’s conclusion only because you have political motivations.

    What’s funny about your statement is that in this entire discussion I haven’t offered an opinion on the Branchflower report. Jukeboxgrad has, but I haven’t. All I’ve done is pointed out that Palin mischaracterized what the report said. You accuse me of “believ[ing] Branchflower’s conclusions” when I haven’t said a word about what I think of Branchflower’s conclusions. I haven’t needed to, because the merits of the report are irrelevant to the fact that she lied about what was in it. Every time I have tried to bring up this fact, you have attempted to change the subject to talk about the merits of the case, and when I finally cornered you into addressing what I had actually asked, you gave me three contradictory answers.

    There is, however, one thing you and I agree on: “Jesus…This is nuts.”

  74. Louis Wheeler says:

    I thank you for the Wikipedia on the case. It told me far more than I ever wanted to know, but it left me unsatisfied. This matter is a real muddle. It stinks of politics.

    It appears to me that we will never agree, Kylopod. The reason is that the rules of logic and American law indicates that an accused is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I have seen no evidence which reaches a necessary level which proves guilt. But, Sarah Palin is guilty in your eyes, and no lack of evidence will change that opinion.

    Branchflower’s report contradicts itself; It builds a miserable case against her. It was illogical for Branchflower to suggest that there was official misconduct when all he made were ligations. His logic doesn’t hold water.

    For example, he reported that Monegan, himself, said that the Palins never pressed him to fire Wooton. They merely disagreed that Wooton was sufficiently punished for his misdeeds. As a private citizen and public official, Sarah Palin had the right to disagree with Monegan’s judgement. Where is the official misconduct or abuse of power in that?

    Perhaps, the Palins overstepped their bounds in the pursuit of justice and yet did not do so sufficiently to commit an Ethical violation. We can all make mistakes.

    The Palins may have wanted Trooper Wooton to be sufficiently punished out of civic responsibility, not out of personal gain. Proving that, it was out of personal gain, is Branchflower’s responsibility and he failed to do that, because he could not prove that there was malice. He merely suggested that there was reason for malice from Wooton’s child custody suit. An allegation does not constitute proof.

    As Governor, Sarah had a responsibility to see that her administration was acting fairly within the law. If Wooton received an insufficient punishment for his actions, then she had the right to see if this could be corrected.

    “Although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination “

    Who cares? Monegan served at her pleasure. She did not need a reason to dismiss him. There was no official abuse of power when she dismissed Monegan.

    The Alaskan Personnel Board cleared Sarah of any ethics violations on November 2. The Personnel Board had, by law, jurisdiction over Ethics issues. The House and Senate Judiciary committees did not have standing to investigate these issues; it was none of their business. Therefore, the Committee’s hiring an investigator, Branchflower, to investigate Sarah was not within their venue. His report was not official. This all smacks of dirty politics — muckraking.

    Wikipedia makes much of the fact that the chairmen and vice chairs of the judiciary committees were three Republicans and one Democrat, but this is not proof that they were unbiased. Sarah had made many enemies in the Republican establishment when she sent prominent Republicans to jail.

    “But she continued to insist she had been cleared even after the interviewer told her that the report had concluded she violated an ethics law. She denied an objective fact that was right in front of her, so it couldn’t have been ignorance.”

    I don’t know what Sarah was thinking in the interview, but neither do you. People often get opinions stuck in their mind. Ignorance is part of the human condition; otherwise there wouldn’t be any Leftists.

    There was also the question of whether Branchflower’s report was objective, rather than politically motivated.

    The snippet, in the article you cited, was so small that I don’t know if she later explained her reasoning more fully. The Washington Post article was an opinion piece masquerading as a news article. It did not try to be unbiased or objective. Obama’s campaign personnel could have written it.

    It could, also, be that Sarah saw that the Branchflower report did not prove that there was personal gain. Besides, the report may have been, to her, irrelevant, because the House and Senate Judiciary Committees had no jurisdiction over ethics issues. The Alaskan Personnel Board had jurisdiction and found, two weeks later, that she committed no ethical violations even in dismissing Monegan.

    Let me define a LIE for you, since you have no definition handy. “A lie is an intentionally false statement.” Let us talk about the two parts.

    The person, to tell a lie, must have the intention to deceive. It is not lie if the person is honestly mistaken or deluded. The snippet, I read, sounded like she believed what she was saying.

    But, all politicians make statements which confuse opinions with facts. An opinion is “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. “ Sarah could have a mistaken opinion about Branchflower’s report and was not lying, at all.

    A false statement has to be proven false. Many of us have opinions which other people will declare is false. The declaration proves nothing in itself. Sarah could have believed that, despite Branchflower’s conclusion, that he had not proven his case against her. Therefore she was cleared of wrong doing. She could be in error, but it could be an honest error, and thus, not a LIE.

    A common Leftist tactic, learned from Saul Alinsky, is to declare that their political enemies are lying, but they never build a good case against them. Partly, it is because they believe that their Leftist dogma is unquestionable. Also, Leftists make moral judgments against their opponents where none exist. Any difference of opinion must be because their opponent is deluded or lying. Their opponent cannot, possibly, have studied Leftist positions and proven them false or illogical. No way.

    The burden of proof is always on the accuser and the Left want us to take their word. No Thanks.

    I don’t care if you believe Branchflower; you brought him up as means of proving that Sarah was lying. You merely place the worst possible spin on her statement, when you don’t know what she believes. I’m not a moralist, Kylodod. I am a Christian. We humans are all sinners. We can often make mistakes. We can accept false opinions and repeat them.

    We can set out to destroy someone else’s veracity, as you are doing. The best way of doing that is to not care about the truth, because you want Sarah’s word to be damned. You refuse to accept that she could have an argument which supports her opinion. You don’t even care if she has such an argument. You probably wouldn’t listen to her explanation.

  75. jukeboxgrad says:

    he reported that Monegan, himself, said that the Palins never pressed him to fire Wooton

    Your statement is misleading. All Monegan said is that he wasn’t explicitly instructed to fire Wooten. See here:

    On August 28, in an interview with Anchorage Daily News, Monegan said, “For the record, no one ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not Todd. Not any of the other staff. What they said directly was more along the lines of ‘This isn’t a person that we would want to be representing our state troopers.’ “[65] He later added that he had resisted pressure from the Governor and her husband to re-open the case against Wooten.

    There was definitely “pressure.” Palin herself eventually admitted there had been pressure.

    The Palins may have wanted Trooper Wooton to be sufficiently punished out of civic responsibility, not out of personal gain.

    Naturally. And that’s why they said nothing to anyone about the Taser incident until two years after it happened. They only brought it up after the divorce got started. I already cited this:

    Although the Taser incident happened in 2003, it was not reported to police until on or after April 11, 2005, the day McCann filed for divorce. On June 6, 2005, a police investigator asked Bristol why they “waited so long and brought the incident up after two years.” Bristol said “because of the divorce and stuff”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal#Taser_incident

    So they didn’t bring it up “out of civic responsibility.” They brought it up “because of the divorce.” Those are Bristol’s own words. Nice job ignoring all inconvenient facts.

    If Wooton received an insufficient punishment for his actions, then she had the right to see if this could be corrected.

    No, she didn’t. He had already been investigated and punished. You need to learn something about the concept of double jeopardy.

    And if she had the “right” to do what she did, then you should explain why she tried to hide it. At first, she “denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from herself or from anyone in her administration.” Then a tape surfaced, and she was forced to make this admission: “pressure could have been perceived to exist, although I have only now become aware of it.” Why was that “pressure” a problem if she supposedly “had the right” to try to punish Wooten further?

    Palin also said this: “absolutely no pressure [was] ever put on Commissioner Monegan to hire or fire anybody, at any time … no pressure was ever put on anybody to fire anybody.” That statement was a lie, because there had been pressure, and she knew it. But if she “had the right,” why the need to hide or deny anything?

    I don’t know if she later explained her reasoning more fully.

    No, she did not.

    We humans are all sinners. We can often make mistakes.

    When an honest person makes a mistake, they issue a correction. Palin did nothing of the sort. Instead, she repeated the false statement, even though a reporter reminded her it was false.

    Sarah could have believed that, despite Branchflower’s conclusion, that he had not proven his case against her.

    Except that she didn’t say “that, despite Branchflower’s conclusion, that he had not proven his case against her.” Instead, she claimed, repeatedly, that he reached a conclusion other than the conclusion he actually reached.

    I notice that despite your many words you’ve said nothing to address the other lies I referenced. Palin said that Wooten abused her sister even though her sister told police that Wooten never abused her. Palin also said that a court found that Wooten was violent and abusive even the court found the opposite of that. But all of that is OK with you, right?

    You refuse to accept that she could have an argument which supports her opinion.

    You should let us in on the secret and tell us where that argument might be hidden.

    And when she said that a court found that Wooten was violent and abusive, she wasn’t expressing an “opinion.” She was inventing her own facts. Something she does routinely. Nice to know that this is OK with you. If this statement (and her other similar statements) does not prove that she’s a liar, then it proves that she’s delusional. Choose your poison.

  76. Kylopod says:

    >It appears to me that we will never agree, Kylopod. … Sarah Palin is guilty in your eyes, and no lack of evidence will change that opinion.

    Once again, I note that I haven’t said a word about Palin’s innocence or guilt in Troopergate. All I’ve done is pointed out that she lied about the Branchflower report.

    >The Alaskan Personnel Board cleared Sarah of any ethics violations on November 2.

    Her claim to have been “cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all” came on Oct. 11, more than three weeks before the Alaska Personnel Board cleared her. She was responding to the Branchflower report from a day earlier and making what you now seem to agree was a false statement. (I commend you for coming around on this point.)

    >I don’t know what Sarah was thinking in the interview, but neither do you.

    By that standard, we can never say that anyone lies, since we can’t read minds.

    >The snippet, in the article you cited, was so small that I don’t know if she later explained her reasoning more fully.

    I linked to an entire interview before! She had plenty of opportunity to explain herself, yet all she did was repeatedly insist she’d been cleared despite being shown directly that she hadn’t been.

    >The Washington Post article was an opinion piece masquerading as a news article.

    It was neither of those things. It was a fact-checking piece, in a series from 2008 that attacked Obama far more often than it attacked Palin. If it was written by “Obama’s campaign personnel,” then Obama must be more masochistic than I ever imagined.

    >Sarah could have believed that, despite Branchflower’s conclusion, that he had not proven his case against her. Therefore she was cleared of wrong doing. She could be in error, but it could be an honest error, and thus, not a LIE.

    I guess it all depends on what her definition of “is” is.

    >A common Leftist tactic, learned from Saul Alinsky, is to declare that their political enemies are lying

    Well, yeah. I mean, the right would never try to oust one of its enemies by saying they lied. Never.

  77. Louis Wheeler says:

    “”he reported that Monegan, himself, said that the Palins never pressed him to fire Wooton

    Your statement is misleading. All Monegan said is that he wasn’t explicitly instructed to fire Wooten. “

    We will have to disagree on this. What does Pressing mean? It means that Monegan was not officially ordered to fire him. Your Anchorage daily news article confirms that.

    “What they said directly was more along the lines of ‘This isn’t a person that we would want to be representing our state troopers.’ “

    How is an expressed opinion a violation of ethics? If the Palins had said, “Fire Wooton or I’ll fire you,” that would be pressing, an abuse of official powers and a violation of Ethics. That didn’t happen.

    “[65] He later added that he had resisted pressure from the Governor and her husband to re-open the case against Wooten.”

    You assume a personal motive, but you have no proof that the Palins were not acting out of civic responsibility to correct an injustice.

    “There was definitely “pressure.” Palin herself eventually admitted there had been pressure.”

    Expressing a personal opinion is not sufficiently pressing to violate Ethics.

    “The Palins may have wanted Trooper Wooton to be sufficiently punished out of civic responsibility, not out of personal gain.

    Naturally. And that’s why they said nothing to anyone about the Taser incident until two years after it happened. They only brought it up after the divorce got started. “

    Of course, they said nothing ay the time. Sarah Palin may not have wanted to interfere in her sister’s domestic affairs, until the sister decided to get a divorce. It was the sister who filed the police report, not Sarah Palin. Once her sister did, than Sarah could comment on the case. She might have gotten her sister angry at her if she had done so earlier.

    Don’t you have any family; haven’t you had to publicly bite your tongue about their dealings?

    “So they didn’t bring it up “out of civic responsibility.” They brought it up “because of the divorce.” Those are Bristol’s own words. “

    Bristol may have said the truth, but not the whole truth. You can have more than one motive for doing anything. The Civic Responsibility issue came up when the Palins learned, two years after the suspension, that Wooton was insufficiently punished. Sarah’s responsibility was to see that justice was done and she failed. You have to prove that she abused her Official Powers in doing so. You have a very weak case.

    “If Wooton received an insufficient punishment for his actions, then she had the right to see if this could be corrected.

    No, she didn’t. He had already been investigated and punished. “

    Apparently, Monegan agrees with you. The Palins might not, but this does not prove malice on their part.

    “And if she had the “right” to do what she did, then you should explain why she tried to hide it. At first, she “denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from herself or from anyone in her administration.”

    Was there a direct threat against Monegan if he didn’t fire Wooton? Or if he refused to reopen the case? No. Monegan says that there was not.

    We are quibbling over the definition of Pressure. Stating your opinion about a miscarriage of justice may be perceived a subtile use of pressure, but the Palins have every right to think it was not.

    “I don’t know if she later explained her reasoning more fully.

    No, she did not.”

    Will you point me to her full comments to verify that? A tiny little snippet in an opinion piece in a politically hostile newspaper, during one of the most divisive campaigns in memory, is not corroborative.

    This is all about politics, not facts. I wouldn’t believe the Washington Post if they said that the Sun would rise tomorrow. I’d start asking, “What do they know which I don’t?” I’d be going to independent sources to confirm that the Sun would rise. LOL

    “We humans are all sinners. We can often make mistakes.

    When an honest person makes a mistake, they issue a correction. “

    An honest person has to perceive that they are in error before they will issue a correction. The Palins apparently hold the opinion that they are not in error. They could be wrong and still not lying.

    “Except that she didn’t say “that, despite Branchflower’s conclusion, that he had not proven his case against her.” Instead, she claimed, repeatedly, that he reached a conclusion other than the conclusion he actually reached.”

    You insist on putting words in her mouth. If she fails to say the right words, or clarify them later, or if a hostile Media never publishes her correction, then she must be lying, right? It is not clear, to me, what Sarah’s meaning was. I am neither biased for her or against her.

    She could be honestly mistaken, but you will never credit that. I am giving her the benefit of my doubts.

    “I notice that despite your many words you’ve said nothing to address the other lies I referenced. Palin said that Wooten abused her sister even though her sister told police that Wooten never abused her. Palin also said that a court found that Wooten was violent and abusive even the court found the opposite of that. But all of that is OK with you, right?”

    That is Sarah’s opinion. Opinions do not have to be grounded in facts or evidence. She can be wrong and still not be lying. A lie must knowingly have the intent to deceive. You insist that you know what she is thinking, while I doubt that.

    We also do not know how her words may be taken out of context by her political opponents. All the supporting evidence you cite is from sources biased against her. There is presumption of guilt. There are opinions presented as facts.

    “You refuse to accept that she could have an argument which supports her opinion.

    You should let us in on the secret and tell us where that argument might be hidden.”

    I don’t have to prove anything, she has the presumption of innocence. She has the right to be wrong. What I resist is you leaping to bad motives, rather than to the stupidity, ignorance and bias which we humans are all prone to.

    “And when she said that a court found that Wooten was violent and abusive, she wasn’t expressing an “opinion.” She was inventing her own facts. Something she does routinely. Nice to know that this is OK with you. “

    I never said that Sarah was perfect; she is a flawed human being, like we all are. She believes what she believes. She can be sincerely wrong. She could have a different criteria of abuse.

    “If this statement (and her other similar statements) does not prove that she’s a liar, then it proves that she’s delusional. Choose your poison.”

    We can all be considered delusional by other people. Or have our words be interpreted in the worst possible spin.

    I believe you are mentally unbalanced to care so much about this.

  78. jukeboxgrad says:

    What does Pressing mean? It means that Monegan was not officially ordered to fire him.

    So it was OK for Palin to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten as long as the pressure didn’t take the form of “officially ordered to fire him?” And if so, then why did Palin deny it and try to hide it?

    How is an expressed opinion a violation of ethics?

    Monegan was told “this isn’t a person that we would want to be representing our state troopers.” That was pressure to fire Wooten. If you think it was OK for Palin to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten, you should explain why Palin tried to deny and hide what she did.

    you have no proof that the Palins were not acting out of civic responsibility to correct an injustice

    Bristol said they did it “because of the divorce,” not out of “civic responsibility.” And if it was out of “civic responsibility,” you need to explain why Palin tried to deny and hide what she did.

    She might have gotten her sister angry at her if she had done so earlier.

    If it was a matter of “civic responsibility,” that should have been considered more important than whether or not “she might have gotten her sister angry at her.”

    The Palins might not

    If “the Palins might not” agree that Wooten had already been investigated and punished, that means they are denying reality. It’s simply a fact that Wooten had already been investigated and punished. The Palins were free to have their opinion that the punishment was not sufficient, but it would still be double jeopardy to have Wooten investigated and punished again. I guess double jeopardy is a concept you just don’t understand.

    We are quibbling over the definition of Pressure. Stating your opinion about a miscarriage of justice may be perceived a subtile use of pressure, but the Palins have every right to think it was not.

    Except that Palin herself ultimately admitted there had been pressure: “it appears that he [Bailey], though, tried to apply some pressure on my behalf.”

    Will you point me to her full comments to verify that?

    You’re the one who is speculating that she later explained her remarks. Therefore the burden is on you to show where she did that.

    It is not clear, to me, what Sarah’s meaning was.

    Except for someone like you who is in denial, it’s not that complicated. She said Branchflower cleared her. Trouble is, Branchflower didn’t clear her.

    That is Sarah’s opinion. Opinions do not have to be grounded in facts or evidence.

    Palin also said that a court found that Wooten was violent and abusive even the court found the opposite of that. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of fact.

    We also do not know how her words may be taken out of context by her political opponents. All the supporting evidence you cite is from sources biased against her.

    You obviously didn’t lift a finger to follow the links that can be found via here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal#Allegations_that_Wooten_is_violent_and_abusive

    The sources are official documents, not “sources biased against her.”

  79. Louis Wheeler says:

    “>It appears to me that we will never agree, Kylopod. … Sarah Palin is guilty in your eyes, and no lack of evidence will change that opinion.

    Once again, I note that I haven’t said a word about Palin’s innocence or guilt in Troopergate. All I’ve done is pointed out that she lied about the Branchflower report.”

    It is possible be wrong and to be honestly mistaken, so that you are not lying. But, nothing you have presented shows that she lied.

    Your evidence is insufficient, because you have not proved her motivation for lying.

    “>The Alaskan Personnel Board cleared Sarah of any ethics violations on November 2.

    Her claim to have been “cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all” came on Oct. 11, more than three weeks before the Alaska Personnel Board cleared her. “

    I said that, myself. I brought up the dates.

    We are not disputing that she might be in error, but that her error does not reach up to an intentional lie. I wanted to know how she explained her opinion. I could imagine her reasoning process, but I lacked sufficient evidence to judge against her.

    It seems now that you have been misreading her words.

    “She was responding to the Branchflower report from a day earlier and making what you now seem to agree was a false statement. (I commend you for coming around on this point.)”

    I disagree that it was a false statement. See my later remarks.

    We human beings can often make mistakes and resist correcting our opinions. It is a leap of faith on your part to assume that any error is automatically a lie. This might indicate bias on your part.

    “>I don’t know what Sarah was thinking in the interview, but neither do you.

    By that standard, we can never say that anyone lies, since we can’t read minds.”

    No, Liars are always tripping themselves up. Their actions, and later events, prove the lie. Has Sarah stated her opinion while acting in ways which disproves her words? Not so far as I can see.

    Obama made promises in the 2008 campaign which never turned into reality. It seems now that they were never intended to be accepted as true. His interviews from before he ran for president show that he always intended to cram the health care bill down our throat. This confirms that his statements during the campaign are lies. He never intended to allow us to keep our own doctor or insurance policies.

    Let’s say you state opinions and later contradict yourself without explaining why you were in error before. If you follow through with actions which confirm your earlier opinions, then your later words are proven to be intentionally false. This is simple logic which goes over your head.

    “>The snippet, in the article you cited, was so small that I don’t know if she later explained her reasoning more fully.

    I linked to an entire interview before! She had plenty of opportunity to explain herself, yet all she did was repeatedly insist she’d been cleared despite being shown directly that she hadn’t been.”

    I suggest that you reread the “The Caucus” article again. Your opinions are not supported by what she said. Your false interpretation proves YOUR bias.

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/palin-denies-abuse-of-authority-in-trooper-case/

    A full and unedited interview was not shown. You only saw what MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM wanted you to see. He used her remarks to mildly discredit her. What I’ve seen here does not reach the level of a lie.

    She said ““I’m thankful that the report has shown that there was no illegal or unethical activity there in my choice to replace our commissioner,” “

    She was right. Branchflower only stated that she had more than one reason for firing Monegan. She didn’t need any reason at all.

    “A partisan kind of process that had been undertaken by some of the legislators who haven’t been real happy with anything that I’ve done along the way as governor, that process is now over, with that finding that I haven’t done anything unlawful in replacing the commissioner.”

    She is absolutely correct in saying that; She hadn’t done anything unlawful.

    She also stated that the reason for Branchflower’s report was politics. It turns out that the Judiciary Committees do not have legal jurisdiction, therefore Branchflower’s report had no legal standing. It didn’t matter what Branchflower believed.

    Branchflower did not prove that there was wrong doing, only that he believed that there was misconduct. He could not verify it. Branchflower assumed that Sarah had malice against Wooton but could not prove it. Without malice against Wooton, no proof existed that she fired Monegan because he would not fire Wooton.

    “A reporter noted that the report concluded that she had abused her power as governor. Ms. Palin replied, “There was no abuse of authority at all in trying to get Officer Wooten fired. “

    She stated her opinion and disagreed with Branchflower’s conclusion. She stated that trying to correct an injustice is not an abuse of official power and Trooper Wooton was not harmed by her actions.

    “In fact, remember, Officer Wooten is still an Alaska state trooper, which is up to the commissioner and the personnel top brass in the Department of Public Safety that decides who is worthy of a badge and carryin’ a gun in the state of Alaska. If they think that Trooper Wooten is worthy of that, that’s their decision. I don’t micromanage my commissioners and ask them to hire or fire anyone.”

    Monegan said that had she not asked him to fire Wooton. Sarah Palin gave other reasons for firing Monegan. She didn’t need any reasons, at all. Branchflower could not prove that Sarah was acting out of personal gain, therefor she was vindicated.

    “>The Washington Post article was an opinion piece masquerading as a news article.

    It was neither of those things. It was a fact-checking piece, in a series from 2008 that attacked Obama far more often than it attacked Palin. If it was written by “Obama’s campaign personnel,” then Obama must be more masochistic than I ever imagined.”

    We will have to disagree with that. You clearly have no means of judging these matters. Articles in Leftist newspapers often state their opinions. They do not state the facts and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions. They often state facts in a way intended to lead to only one conclusion.

    Luckily, most of us older readers are able to thread through the false reasoning. It is also why the Leftist newspapers, such as the New York Times, are losing circulation, so fast, that they are unlikely to survive the next decade.

    You, younger readers, cannot discern the difference between an opinion and a fact. I’d suggested that you take a course in Logic, but it is very hard to find an honest course, because the Left have co-oped the Universities. I can recommend some books, if you are interested.

    “>Sarah could have believed that, despite Branchflower’s conclusion, that he had not proven his case against her. Therefore she was cleared of wrong doing. She could be in error, but it could be an honest error, and thus, not a LIE.

    I guess it all depends on what her definition of “is” is.”

    No, this all hangs on intent. If her intent is honest, then her mistakes are not lies.

    Clinton lied in a deposition while being under oath. He stated that he had not had sex with Monica, but later admitted that he had. Hence, he admitted to being a liar at the deposition. There were legal consequences of doing that, which lead to him being disbarred.

    “>A common Leftist tactic, learned from Saul Alinsky, is to declare that their political enemies are lying

    Well, yeah. I mean, the right would never try to oust one of its enemies by saying they lied. Never.”

    It’s all about what you can prove. The Left proclaim that their opponents are lying when they have no case. They believe that the accusation is enough.

    The New York Times, in the 2008 election, claimed that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist when they had no proof. It was all hot air. From what I remember, The Times never printed a retraction. When the assertion was ridiculed by John’s Democrat colleagues in the Senate, the Times let the accusation drop without comment.

    Do the Right say that their opponents are lying? Sure, but this, often, turns out to be the case. John Edwards had an affair and a child out of wedlock. Later, John admitted this fact.

    The Left have a poor track record of illegitimately defaming their enemies. We American citizens have learned to take their claims with a grain of salt. The claims against Sarah Palin have been absurd. No doubt, there are Leftist who believe all of them, but those people are nut jobs.

    You have failed to prove that Sarah lied. You misread what she said. You placed a false connotation on her statements. Her reasoning is crystal clear to me. She didn’t care what Branchflower’s political report concluded, because he never said anything valid. She could think that his report vindicated her because his case against her was so pathetic.

  80. jukeboxgrad says:

    She could think that his report vindicated her because his case against her was so pathetic.

    It doesn’t matter if she thinks the report vindicated her. What matters is what the report actually says. The problem is that what the report says is contrary to what she said the report says.

  81. Kylopod says:

    @Louis Wheeler

    You said:

    >We are not disputing that she might be in error, but that her error does not reach up to an intentional lie

    And then you stated:

    >I disagree that it was a false statement.

    How is it that you agree she might be in error, but don’t agree it was a false statement?

    >Let’s say you state opinions and later contradict yourself without explaining why you were in error before. If you follow through with actions which confirm your earlier opinions, then your later words are proven to be intentionally false.

    Proving deceit doesn’t require any of that. All you need to do is prove that the person stated something untrue, and that they were aware of the truth beforehand. Palin knew the report had concluded she violated an ethics law: she was informed of that fact by her interviewer. Yet she continued to insist she’d been “cleared.” She never corrected herself or even acknowledged what the interviewer had said.

    >I could imagine her reasoning process

    And the reasoning process you provided was absurd, as I showed before.

    >A full and unedited interview was not shown.

    I linked to a full and unedited interview from Anchorage Daily News at the very beginning of this discussion. This interview, in which she stated she had been “cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity,” was from a day after the Branchflower report was released, and from the same day in which the NYT article appeared. The NYT article didn’t feature the full transcript of her quoted statements, but she was saying the same things as in the ADN interview, with only minor differences in wording.

    >She stated her opinion and disagreed with Branchflower’s conclusion.

    You’re just assuming that. She never once acknowledged that the report concluded she violated an ethics law, and she repeatedly implied just the opposite.

    >You, younger readers, cannot discern the difference between an opinion and a fact.

    Well, you got me there. Being about a month away from my 34th birthday, I obviously am sorely lacking in the life experience needed to discern that difference, which as everyone knows can only be absorbed after one’s first colonoscopy.

    But I can start by learning from you, right? Here’s what I’ve picked up from our pleasant little conversation:

    OPINION: Sarah Palin was cleared of any legal or ethical wrongdoings by the Branchflower report.
    FACT: Obama crammed his health care bill down our throats.

    I’m getting it, aren’t I?

    >I’d suggested that you take a course in Logic

    I did, actually, and I got an A. I think, but am not sure, that the professor was a Republican.

    >Clinton lied in a deposition while being under oath. He stated that he had not had sex with Monica, but later admitted that he had.

    He stated he hadn’t had “sexual relations” with her, and later admitted he had had an “improper physical relationship” with her. He claimed these were not the same thing and therefore he wasn’t guilty of perjury. This was an unconvincing hair-splitting argument, but it is more semantically defensible than anything you’ve come up with to defend Palin’s lie about Branchflower. Clinton was relying on a definition of “sexual relations” which doesn’t include the sorts of activities he engaged in with Lewinsky. This definition was strained in the context of the lawsuit, but it’s still a valid definition that fits the way some people use the term. You, on the other hand, have invented an entirely unheard of definition of the word “cleared” to absolve Palin of the dishonesty charge. (Your words: “If she knew that she hadn’t done anything wrong, and that Branchflower was unable to substantiate any charges, then the fact that he was unable to, proved that she was cleared.”) That’s what I find so hilariously ironic: in attempting to defend Sarah Palin against the charge of lying, you’ve managed to out-Clinton Clinton.

    >The New York Times, in the 2008 election, claimed that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist

    Actually, all they claimed was that anonymous staffers had told them some of his top advisers believed he was having an affair with the lobbyist and tried to keep her away from him. The McCain camp denied this had occurred, but neither the charge nor the denial was ever proven, and the woman failed to win any damages from her subsequent lawsuit against the NYT. Nevertheless, the article was widely criticized within the NYT itself, including by the paper’s own public editor, and as a condition of the lawsuit the NYT attached a disclaimer to the online version of the article and published a statement by her lawyers. It was not one of the NYT’s finer moments, but out of curiosity what would you describe as news sources with a better scorecard?

    >John Edwards had an affair

    As did Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, David Vitter, Mark Souder, John Ensign, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, and John McCain (who cheated on his first wife with a much younger woman who would become his second and current wife). For a longer list go here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States

    As you can see, there is plenty of philandering going on by public officials in both parties. Only someone who’s been completely propagandized would think it only happens on one side of the political aisle. Alas, a tyke like me wouldn’t know what that’s like.

  82. Louis Wheeler says:

    “She could think that his report vindicated her because his case against her was so pathetic.

    It doesn’t matter if she thinks the report vindicated her. What matters is what the report actually says. The problem is that what the report says is contrary to what she said the report says.”

    You and Sarah may have very different opinions of what is important in Branchflower’s report: the content in the body or his summary.

    The summaries of Leftist documents are usually for political consumption. Their conclusions are often contradicted by the content in the body. As the reader, you can take either as being factual.

    In Fact, the best way to read an official document is to study the body and write your own inferences. If the author’s summary is very different from your’s then he may be playing politics for the foolish and lazy.

    Branchflower’s opinion don’t matter, because this was not an official report. The Judiciary committees had no jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter what Branchflower’s opinions were. Reading the body says he had no case.

  83. Louis Wheeler says:

    “You said:
    >We are not disputing that she might be in error, but that her error does not reach up to an intentional lie
    And then you stated:
    >I disagree that it was a false statement.

    How is it that you agree she might be in error, but don’t agree it was a false statement?”

    We can all be in error; the question is how much. Our opinions do not have to be backed by fact or logic. Someone must take the time to disprove our opinions. In the absence of proof, my presumption is with the accused; It’s the American way.

    False does not always equate with a Lie. People can be honestly mistaken.

    In short, If I don’t know what her thinking is; I’m not going to automatically think her false. Besides, her thinking, eventually, became clear to me. But, I’m an open minded man.

    I don’t think that she was talking about Branchflower’s summary. The body of his report vindicated her. There was no case against her. You are obsessed about Branchflower’s politically biased conclusions.

    “>Let’s say you state opinions and later contradict yourself without explaining why you were in error before. If you follow through with actions which confirm your earlier opinions, then your later words are proven to be intentionally false.

    Proving deceit doesn’t require any of that.”

    Yes, but this how you trap politicians. Their later actions don’t match their words. This makes them hypocrites.

    “All you need to do is prove that the person stated something untrue, and that they were aware of the truth beforehand. “

    It’s not that simple. You have some proving to do.

    How do you know that the “something” is untrue? Do you agree on the basic facts? You may be making false assumptions, yourself. How do you prove that the person was aware of the truth?

    What truth? You may not be on the same page as Sarah. The problem is that you don’t want to know what she believes.

    You are making vast assumptions about Sarah’s statements. I don’t think you are talking about the same things. She continually referenced the body of the report while ignoring the summary. You are doing the opposite. You are using her opinions based on the body to call her out as a liar.

    Of course, she might be naive in thinking that her opponents are smart enough to analyze a politically suspect document.

    “Palin knew the report had concluded she violated an ethics law: she was informed of that fact by her interviewer. Yet she continued to insist she’d been “cleared.” She never corrected herself or even acknowledged what the interviewer had said.”

    Right, because she saw the summary as a political statement which was not supported by the body.

    This is common. The UN’s International Panel on Climate Control report would list 34 to 36 scenarios from the reasonable to the outlandish. The body always stated that the mildest conclusions were the most likely: that we would see an 8 inch rise in the ocean’s level in a century and that no one would be much harmed by that. The Summary always proclaimed the most unlikely scenario: that the oceans would rise six to thirty feet and that it would be a catastrophe.

    “>I could imagine her reasoning process

    And the reasoning process you provided was absurd, as I showed before.”

    No, it is that she is guilty until proven innocent. You would never listen to anything that would clear her. This is so trivial.

    “>A full and unedited interview was not shown.

    “I linked to a full and unedited interview from Anchorage Daily News at the very beginning of this discussion. “

    Yes, I had read them. It seemed like she was doing what accomplished politicians always do, being selective about what she answered and giving the answers that best fit her position. That is, she was acting very defensively. She stated her opinion that she was cleared. She did not explain in detail why she thought that. No one asked.

    A reporter asked her a compound sentence, which always a mistake with politicians. She answered the question of whether she did anything wrong in the Trooper gate case. She ignored the previous statement that finding #1 was that she had abused her powers. She did not answer the question of, “Have you read the whole report?” She defended her right to fire Monegan. In short, she got the better of the reporters. The people who say she is stupid are idiots; this lady can think on her feet.

    “>She stated her opinion and disagreed with Branchflower’s conclusion.

    You’re just assuming that. She never once acknowledged that the report concluded she violated an ethics law, and she repeatedly implied just the opposite.”

    Apparently, Branchflower’s summary was of little importance to her. I can’t see how Branchflower can support his opinion.

    “>You, younger readers, cannot discern the difference between an opinion and a fact.

    Well, you got me there. Being about a month away from my 34th birthday, “

    Anyone above his 66th year can think of you as being young. True, I had judged you as being much younger. Your political naivety, doctrinaire positions and a general inability to debate makes you appear like a teenager.

    I’ve had a more rigorous debate than this with a 10 year old, but he was a smart ten year old. He never let his opinions precede his reasoning. He knew I’d challenge every inconsistency.

    “I obviously am sorely lacking in the life experience needed to discern that difference, which as everyone knows can only be absorbed after one’s first colonoscopy.”

    No, I’ve had close leftist friends who died of colorectal cancer. Age does not bring wisdom, but young and stupid are closely linked. People tend to become more conservative as they age.

    I used to be a Democrat until the 70s; it took me a decade and a half to discard the Socialist rubbish I learned in college. I kept a few of my college friends, mostly by not talking about politics. The one’s I kept were good people caught up in a false, materialistic religion. I refrained from preaching at them. I smiled when they preached at me.

    “But I can start by learning from you, right? Here’s what I’ve picked up from our pleasant little conversation:

    OPINION: Sarah Palin was cleared of any legal or ethical wrongdoings by the Branchflower report.
    FACT: Obama crammed his health care bill down our throats.”

    You must admit that no one knew what was in the health care bill. Nancy Pelosi said that they had to pass it before you could read it. The polls were showing that 60% of the public did not want it to be passed, but it was passed in a midnight session when no one in Congress had read it, let alone the public. That pattern smacks of “Cramming down throats.

    I reluctantly liked them doing that, though. Why? It was so highhanded. It put them on the spot.

    The Left have gotten away with pretending that they are the good guys, when they are putting America on the road to destruction. It’s taking a risk, but I think that the only way to destroy Socialism is to put its proponents into power. They can no longer carp from the sidelines; they must do something. Their solutions to life’s problems are so unrealistic that they will kill people and destroy fortunes. Jimmy Carter’s administration was so painful that he kept the Democrats out of power for a generation. You were about a year old when he was elected.

    Besides, you can make a profit off of the Left’s plans. I have no control over the pain that Obama and his friends will put America through, but If you know what is coming, you can protect yourself and family. You won’t starve when others do. If the Democrats go down the same path as Jimmy Carter did, I will become a millionaire. If Obama succeeds in destroying the dollar, I will get even more, but I might have to leave the country. America might become a wasteland, especially around the big cities. We can’t fence our Southern border, but we will fence off Detroit.

    “I’m getting it, aren’t I?”

    No, To see, you must open your eyes.

    Besides, I never said that she was cleared, but It seems to me that she believed she was. If she believes it, then her statements are not a lie.

    I always said that she might be in error, but I haven’t seen a Smoking Gun. I don’t agree with Branchflower’s summary. I can’t imagine how he could legitimately draw that conclusion.

    “>I’d suggested that you take a course in Logic

    I did, actually, and I got an A. I think, but am not sure, that the professor was a Republican.”

    You must have put on political blinkers, since then. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    Many people use the rules of logic to distort the truth. Saul Alinsky was renown for doing that.

    “>Clinton lied in a deposition while being under oath. He stated that he had not had sex with Monica, but later admitted that he had.

    He stated he hadn’t had “sexual relations” with her, and later admitted he had had an “improper physical relationship” with her.”

    His improper physical relationship was that she was performing oral sex on him. The proof was his sperm mixed with her saliva on her dress. They could tell that the blood groupings matched them both. A DNA test could have determined this more fully, but I don’t think one was taken.

    My dictionary says that oral sex comes under the heading of “sexual relations.” Oral sex is sex between people. Perhaps you have a special Leftist dictionary which omits that.

    “He claimed these were not the same thing and therefore he wasn’t guilty of perjury. “

    He’s a lawyer. Don’t you know lawyers lie or equivocate? LOL

    ‘When you have the evidence on your side, pound the facts. When you have the law on your side, pound the law. When you have neither, pound the table.’

    “This was an unconvincing hair-splitting argument, but it is more semantically defensible than anything you’ve come up with to defend Palin’s lie about Branchflower. “

    You presume her guilt and will not consider an alternative explanation. I said that I did not know, but that I wouldn’t be prejudiced against her. Then, I read the evidence and found it lacking. I am willing to posit that she could be sincerely wrong and hence, not a liar.

    “Clinton was relying on a definition of “sexual relations” which doesn’t include the sorts of activities he engaged in with Lewinsky. “

    He had his own definition and he was disbarred as a result. The opposing lawyers in his sexual harassment suit defined for him the definition of Sexual Relations. He must have not been paying attention.

    “This definition was strained in the context of the lawsuit, but it’s still a valid definition that fits the way some people use the term. “

    You must be a relativist who believes that everyone has their own truth, so that they can’t be held accountable for Universal Truths or pesky things like dictionaries.

    Don’t step out in front of moving busses; you Will get hurt. Don’t put on a Superman cape and try to leap off tall buildings. You might hurt someone when you land.

    “You, on the other hand, have invented an entirely unheard of definition of the word “cleared” to absolve Palin of the dishonesty charge. “

    My dictionary says that cleared means, “show or declare (someone) officially to be innocent.”

    I will agree that Branchflower’s report does not do that. First, because Branchflower’s report is not official. Second, because part of the report shows her to be innocent while the political summery does not. It was the Alaskan Personnel Board which cleared her of wrong doing. She may have been hasty in her judgement on Branchflower.

    “(Your words: “If she knew that she hadn’t done anything wrong, and that Branchflower was unable to substantiate any charges, then the fact that he was unable to, proved that she was cleared.”) That’s what I find so hilariously ironic: in attempting to defend Sarah Palin against the charge of lying, you’ve managed to out-Clinton Clinton.”

    I said that she could be mistaken. I am not defending Sarah; I merely disagree that you have proven your case.

    “>The New York Times, in the 2008 election, claimed that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist”

    Actually, all they claimed was that anonymous staffers had told them some of his top advisers believed he was having an affair with the lobbyist and tried to keep her away from him. “

    The Times couldn’t back up their assertion. Putting the accusations in anonymous person’s mouths does not absolve the NY Times of their responsibility. Newspapers are supposed to tell the truth, not gossip, not try to sabotage their political opponents. The Press is supposed to have journalistic standards. They violated them with this scurrilous story. They are paying a financial price; their circulation is dropping to the floor.

    “It was not one of the NYT’s finer moments, but out of curiosity what would you describe as news sources with a better scorecard?”

    The Orange County Register and The New York Post are pretty good. They are mostly conservative, so you probably haven’t read them. I agree with the Wall Street journal’s editorial page most of the time, but its regular news is leftist crap. I could get that from the Associated Press On Line and do. I don’t have to pay a subscription.

    What’s odd is I like the French foreign wire service for foreign news or a fresh slant on American news. It had the best and least biased reporting during the Iraqi war.
    http://www.afp.com/afpcom/en/

    But, you must be careful with any news source. As Mark Twain said, “If you don’t read the papers then you are uninformed. If you read the papers, then you are misinformed.”

    “>John Edwards had an affair

    As did Rudy Giuliani, …:”

    All human beings are sinners. I was making the point that Liars trip themselves up. I was denying your assertion. You don’t have to read their minds or put words in their mouths. Liars destroy themselves. No honest person assumes guilt as you are doing.

    The Obama administration is one of the most corrupt in American history, but it will take time for the public to be shown that. Wikileaks is just the start. There will be an orgy of participants. Billions are missing, but no one in the government ever gets fired over that.

    We American TEA Party activists will fire the crooks in both parties. It might take a revolution to get that. But, it looks like the SEIU and Acorn will be bringing the revolution to us. I suspect that they will be surprised; that the ordinary American is not yet dependent or decadent enough to want a socialist paradise.

  84. jukeboxgrad says:

    Wheeler, thanks for this vivid demonstration of how the Palinist mind operates. Your inadvertent public service is considerable.

    Shorter Wheeler: ‘Palin disagrees with Branchflower’s conclusions; therefore it’s perfectly fine for her to pretend that he concluded something other than what he actually concluded.’

    In the absence of proof, my presumption is with the accused; It’s the American way.

    Yes, your “presumption is with the accused” except if the “accused” happens to be a veteran and cop named Wooten and if the accuser happens to be named Palin. Then you look the other way when shown evidence that the accuser is a liar.

    This is what Palin said in an email on 8/10/05:

    Wooten’s physical abuse of his wife is documented in their pending divorce case.

    http://bit.ly/eoHO0d

    (See p. 2 of the pdf.)

    On this and many other subsequent occasions Palin accused Wooten of being physically abusive to Palin’s sister (Molly). But is it true? This is what Molly herself told police on 4/11/05:

    He has never physically abused her.

    http://bit.ly/gZqZh7

    (See p. 1 of the pdf.)

    This what Palin’s father told police on 4/11/05:

    Wooten had not physically assaulted his daughter

    http://bit.ly/hBWINQ

    (See p. 1 of the pdf.)

    A court had issued a temporary domestic violence protective order (DVPO). No evidence was required; it was issued upon request, pending a hearing. Here’s what happened at the hearing:

    During the DVPO hearing, the judge found that there was no basis for issuance of a long-term DVPO.

    http://bit.ly/hBWINQ

    (See p. 4 of the pdf.)

    More about that hearing, from a police sergeant who was present:

    On 5-9-05, I traveled to Anchorage to attend a court hearing regarding the DVPO and visitation for Trooper Wooten. Among the issues before the judge were visitation, custody investigation order, child and spousal support, and the return of Wooten’s personal items.

    As a result of the hearing the DVPO was quashed. Attorneys for McCann advised that she was in fear of Wooten shooting her, or harming the children through acts or neglect. The judge reviewed the original petition and informed counsel for McCann that they did not outline any fear from firearms, and asked if there had been any threats related to weapons. McCann’s counsel was unable to produce any acts of physical or implied violence. The judge then advised to have some of Wooten’s weapons returned to him. The judge did issue a civil no contact order to prevent future arguments. The judge further allowed trooper Wooten more visitations with his children.

    http://bit.ly/gsfhaR

    (See p. 14 of the pdf.)

    Follow that? “McCann’s counsel was unable to produce any acts of physical or implied violence.” Therefore the judge dissolved the DVPO. Nevertheless, three months later, Palin wrote this in an email:

    Wooten’s physical abuse of his wife is documented in their pending divorce case.

    This is the opposite of the truth. There was a failure for “physical abuse” to be “documented.” That’s why the DVPO was dissolved. Nevertheless, Palin continued on subsequent occasions to accuse Wooten of physical abuse against Molly, and continued to reference the DVPO as proof that Wooten was physically abusive. Even though the DVPO was dissolved because the court found that “McCann’s counsel was unable to produce any acts of physical or implied violence.”

    On 9/1/08, Palin issued this statement via her lawyer:

    In 2005 and early 2006, State Trooper Mike Wooten was the subject of a court-imposed Domestic Violence Protective Order.

    http://politi.co/eC4pqY

    (See p. 1 of the pdf.)

    The “early 2006” part is an outright falsehood. The DVPO was dissolved on 5/9/05. In that same document, Palin accused Wooten of “violent behavior” directed at Palin’s sister. Even though a court found that “McCann’s counsel was unable to produce any acts of physical or implied violence.”

    Palin has repeated her defamatory claim against Wooten over and over again, for years, even though her accusation is contrary to what Palin’s sister said, and contrary to what Palin’s father said, and contrary to what was found by the court. But all this is OK with you, because “in the absence of proof, my presumption is with the accused; It’s the American way.” Right?

  85. Kylopod says:

    >False does not always equate with a Lie. People can be honestly mistaken.

    Yes–if they, unlike Palin at the time she made this statement, are unaware of the facts which contradict what they’re saying.

    >In short, If I don’t know what her thinking is; I’m not going to automatically think her false.

    What she said wasn’t a statement of opinion but a statement of fact. If she had said, “The report’s accusations of ethical abuse are unsubstantiated,” that would be an opinion. Instead, she claimed the report had cleared her, which in fact it did not.

    >I don’t think that she was talking about Branchflower’s summary. The body of his report vindicated her. There was no case against her.

    Again, this goes back to the difference between opinion and fact. Whether Branchflower had a case against her is a matter of opinion, but it is a fact that that he did not clear her.

    >Yes, but this how you trap politicians. Their later actions don’t match their words. This makes them hypocrites.

    Believe me, if I wanted to start talking about hypocrisy and Palin, I’d have a load to work with. But I don’t want to change the subject as of yet. Hypocrisy is so common in politics it’s almost boring. What fascinates me about Palin’s lies, compared with those of other pols, is their complete lack of any subtlety.

    >How do you know that the “something” is untrue?

    In this case, the truth which Palin denied was in plain view. The Branchflower report did not clear her. Period.

    >How do you prove that the person was aware of the truth?

    If they were shown it directly, that is pretty conclusive evidence that they were aware of it.

    >You would never listen to anything that would clear her.

    I must point out once again (how many times has it been?) that I haven’t said a word about her innocence or guilt in Troopergate. It is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that she lied.

    >She stated her opinion that she was cleared.

    And I will state my opinion that 1 + 1 = 3.

    >She answered the question of whether she did anything wrong in the Trooper gate case. She ignored the previous statement that finding #1 was that she had abused her powers.

    And then she ended her remarks with the declaration that she had been “cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity,” echoing what she had said before, and directly contradicting the empirical fact the reporter had just pointed out to her.

    >Apparently, Branchflower’s summary was of little importance to her

    That obviously isn’t true: she repeatedly referenced the report summary’s second finding, that the firing itself was a legitimate act. It was only the report’s first finding that she pretended didn’t exist.

    >Age does not bring wisdom

    It sure doesn’t. It sure doesn’t.

    >You must admit that no one knew what was in the health care bill.

    No, I don’t admit it, because it isn’t true. The whole thing was available online before its passage, and several news organizations had already provided summaries of what was in it.

    >The polls were showing that 60% of the public did not want it to be passed

    That is incorrect. Most polls showed both support and opposition to be below 50%. Only one poll (CNN) showed opposition to be as high as 59%, and one other (Fox) showed opposition among “registered voters” to be at 55%. But these were outliers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Public_opinions_and_views

    >but it was passed in a midnight session when no one in Congress had read it

    I hate to break it to you, but Congresspeople do not read most bills. This has been true long before Obama entered office.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15620-2004Nov26.html

    >You were about a year old when [Carter] was elected.

    Actually, I was born the day of his inauguration. No joke.

    >Besides, I never said that she was cleared

    Again, your words: “If she knew that she hadn’t done anything wrong, and that Branchflower was unable to substantiate any charges, then the fact that he was unable to, proved that she was cleared.”

    It sure sounds to me like you were saying she was cleared.

    >Many people use the rules of logic to distort the truth.

    Of course. Logic is merely a tool. Personally, the home-based course I took on critical thinking while I was homeschooled proved far more valuable to me than the logic course I took in college.

    >My dictionary says that oral sex comes under the heading of “sexual relations.”

    I would certainly define it that way. But apparently not everyone does. At least one version of Webster’s defines sexual relations as “coitus.” And apparently this is the way a lot of young people see it:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-10-19-teens-technical-virginity_x.htm

    The point is not to get into a discussion about whether this view is correct or not. As you stated before, saying something incorrect isn’t a lie if the person believes it to be correct. If Clinton believed “sexual relations” doesn’t include fellatio, then he wasn’t lying by saying he didn’t have sexual relations with her.

    >The opposing lawyers in his sexual harassment suit defined for him the definition of Sexual Relations.

    And the wording of that definition enabled Clinton to later argue, on valid semantic grounds, that it did not include receiving (as opposed to giving) oral sex.

    >You must be a relativist who believes that everyone has their own truth

    Um…have you totally forgotten what I’ve been arguing about Palin?

    >Putting the accusations in anonymous person’s mouths does not absolve the NY Times of their responsibility.

    Anonymously sourced claims is standard practice in newspapers, including the ones you recommend below.

    >They are paying a financial price; their circulation is dropping to the floor.

    Actually, the NY Post has experienced a significantly larger drop in circulation than the Times.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/business/media/27audit.html

    The fact is, the circulation of all traditional newspapers has suffered in recent years due to a mixture of the country’s economic problems and people’s increasing use of the Internet. Why should I become a paid subscriber to the Times when I can get all its articles for free online? Your theory that it has something to do with a single scurrilous article is a laughable inversion of the truth. If anything, people are increasingly turning to blogs and other sources where rumor, bias, and gossip are far more prevalent than they ever were in the NYT.

    >Newspapers are supposed to tell the truth, not gossip

    I guess so. After all, the NY Post would never stoop to printing gossip.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_gAz3qFWPEMKJp6bwh6W79M

  86. Kylopod says:

    >False does not always equate with a Lie. People can be honestly mistaken.

    Yes–if they, unlike Palin at the time she made this statement, are unaware of the facts which contradict what they’re saying.

    >In short, If I don’t know what her thinking is; I’m not going to automatically think her false.

    What she said wasn’t a statement of opinion but a statement of fact. If she had said, “The report’s accusations of ethical abuse are unsubstantiated,” that would be an opinion. Instead, she claimed the report had cleared her, which in fact it did not.

    >I don’t think that she was talking about Branchflower’s summary. The body of his report vindicated her. There was no case against her.

    Again, this goes back to the difference between opinion and fact. Whether Branchflower had a case against her is a matter of opinion, but it is a fact that that he did not clear her.

    >Yes, but this how you trap politicians. Their later actions don’t match their words. This makes them hypocrites.

    Believe me, if I wanted to start talking about hypocrisy and Palin, I’d have a load to work with. But I don’t want to change the subject as of yet. Hypocrisy is so common in politics it’s almost boring. What fascinates me about Palin’s lies, compared with those of other pols, is their complete lack of any subtlety.

    >How do you know that the “something” is untrue?

    In this case, the truth which Palin denied was in plain view. The Branchflower report did not clear her. Period.

    >How do you prove that the person was aware of the truth?

    If they were shown it directly, that is pretty conclusive evidence that they were aware of it.

    >You would never listen to anything that would clear her.

    I must point out once again (how many times has it been?) that I haven’t said a word about her innocence or guilt in Troopergate. It is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that she lied.

    >She stated her opinion that she was cleared.

    And I will state my opinion that 1 + 1 = 3.

    >She answered the question of whether she did anything wrong in the Trooper gate case. She ignored the previous statement that finding #1 was that she had abused her powers.

    And then she ended her remarks with the declaration that she had been “cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity,” echoing what she had said before, and directly contradicting the empirical fact the reporter had just pointed out to her.

    >Apparently, Branchflower’s summary was of little importance to her

    That obviously isn’t true: she repeatedly referenced the report summary’s second finding, that the firing itself was a legitimate act. It was only the report’s first finding that she pretended didn’t exist.

    >Age does not bring wisdom

    It sure doesn’t. It sure doesn’t.

    >You must admit that no one knew what was in the health care bill.

    No, I don’t admit it, because it isn’t true. The whole thing was available online before its passage, and several news organizations had already provided summaries of what was in it.

    >The polls were showing that 60% of the public did not want it to be passed

    That is incorrect. Most polls showed both support and opposition to be below 50%. Only one poll (CNN) showed opposition to be as high as 59%, and one other (Fox) showed opposition among “registered voters” to be at 55%. But these were outliers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Public_opinions_and_views

    >but it was passed in a midnight session when no one in Congress had read it

    I hate to break it to you, but Congresspeople do not read most bills. This has been true long before Obama entered office.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15620-2004Nov26.html

    >You were about a year old when [Carter] was elected.

    Actually, I was born the day of his inauguration. No joke.

    >Besides, I never said that she was cleared

    Again, your words: “If she knew that she hadn’t done anything wrong, and that Branchflower was unable to substantiate any charges, then the fact that he was unable to, proved that she was cleared.”

    It sure sounds to me like you were saying she was cleared.

    >Many people use the rules of logic to distort the truth.

    Of course. Logic is merely a tool. Personally, the home-based course I took on critical thinking while I was homeschooled proved far more valuable to me than the logic course I took in college.

    >My dictionary says that oral sex comes under the heading of “sexual relations.”

    I would certainly define it that way. But apparently not everyone does. At least one version of Webster’s defines sexual relations as “coitus.” The point is not to get into a discussion about whether this view is correct or not. As you stated before, saying something incorrect isn’t a lie if the person believes it to be correct. If Clinton believed “sexual relations” doesn’t include fellatio, then he wasn’t lying by saying he didn’t have sexual relations with her.

    >The opposing lawyers in his sexual harassment suit defined for him the definition of Sexual Relations.

    And the wording of that definition enabled Clinton to later argue, on valid semantic grounds, that it did not include receiving (as opposed to giving) oral sex.

    >You must be a relativist who believes that everyone has their own truth

    Um…have you totally forgotten what I’ve been arguing about Palin?

    >Putting the accusations in anonymous person’s mouths does not absolve the NY Times of their responsibility.

    Anonymously sourced claims is standard practice in newspapers, including the ones you recommend below.

    >They are paying a financial price; their circulation is dropping to the floor.

    Actually, the NY Post has experienced a significantly larger drop in circulation than the Times. The fact is, the circulation of all traditional newspapers has suffered in recent years due to a mixture of the country’s economic problems and people’s increasing use of the Internet. Why should I become a paid subscriber to the Times when I can get all its articles for free online? Your theory that it has something to do with a single scurrilous article is a laughable inversion of the truth. If anything, people are increasingly turning to blogs and other sources where rumor, bias, and gossip are far more prevalent than they ever were in the NYT.

    >Newspapers are supposed to tell the truth, not gossip

    I guess so. After all, the NY Post would never stoop to printing gossip.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_gAz3qFWPEMKJp6bwh6W79M

  87. Kylopod says:

    Sorry for the double comment. The first comment went into the moderation queue, and then I removed a few of the links and submitted it again. This time it was accepted, but when I came back here later, the first comment had been accepted. In short, the first comment has a couple of more links than the second.

  88. Louis Wheeler says:

    ” ‘Palin disagrees with Branchflower’s conclusions; therefore it’s perfectly fine for her to pretend that he concluded something other than what he actually concluded.’”

    No, she doesn’t have to mention it. She can have her own opinion. She can avoid a direct answer, but she must be careful to avoid a direct contradiction. So far, I think Sarah had threaded the issue rather will. The case is dead. Branchflower’s report has vanished from public discourse, except for fanatics like you.

    She probably sees Branchflower’s conclusions as being political. If the DNC had commissioned Branchflower, rather than her enemies in the legislature, his report wouldn’t be seen as anything else but biased.

    I’m sure she wants this report to die swiftly. One way of doing that is to not make much of it. She stated her conclusion that an honest review of the evidence would be in her favor.

    “In the absence of proof, my presumption is with the accused; It’s the American way.

    Yes, your “presumption is with the accused” except if the “accused” happens to be a veteran and cop named Wooten and if the accuser happens to be named Palin. Then you look the other way when shown evidence that the accuser is a liar.”

    We really haven’t looked into the accusations against Wooton, before. I didn’t know if he was guilty of anything. I hadn’t made up my mind. I was just saying that the case against Palin is impossibly weak.

    Sarah had a perfect right to fire Monegan for any reason. The question is if Sarah fired Monegan for the illegitimate reason of personal gain. The Alaskan Personnel Board said that she did not. Since they, not Branchflower, are the official report, I am willing to believe them.

    ———

    I will agree that Sarah has bad feelings toward Wooton. But, it is a stretch to contend that she would commit a crime against him or violate her ethics. Documenting the accusations against Wooton is not an abuse of power. It can be the pursuit of justice.

    “This is what Palin said in an email on 8/10/05:
    Wooten’s physical abuse of his wife is documented in their pending divorce case.
    http://bit.ly/eoHO0d (See p. 2 of the pdf.)

    I suggest that you re-read this. Sarah is making a case that Wooton is an abusive individual.

    She says that her sister is intimidated by her husband and protects herself from further abuse by not charging him with crimes.

    I don’t know if this is true. It seems evident that Sarah believes that it is. As long as she believes this, then trying to see that justice is served against Wooton is not illegitimate. All citizens have the responsibility to report crimes and to seek justice, even against police officers.

    “On this and many other subsequent occasions Palin accused Wooten of being physically abusive to Palin’s sister (Molly). But is it true? This is what Molly herself told police on 4/11/05:
    He has never physically abused her.”

    http://bit.ly/gZqZh7

    Molly McCann says that she is afraid of her ex-husband and that he is very intimidating. Mental abuse is cause for a divorce. I never saw a definition for “physical abuse” in the document. Molly might not see being pushed and shoved as abuse, but it is assault under civil law. Wooton is described as believing that he is protected because he is a police officer. He is accused of actions which, if he were a private citizen, would cause him to be arrested and charged.

    Again, your case is not about Wooton; Sarah has committed no crime against him. Nor has Wooton against Sarah; but Todd Palin would probably clean Wooton’s clock if he did.

    ——

    “This what Palin’s father told police on 4/11/05:

    Wooten had not physically assaulted his daughter. http://bit.ly/hBWINQ

    Yes, Wooton seems to have a pattern of being a thug and a bully. He seems to pick on weak people who will not force him to commit violence. They will not charge him with crimes, either.

    ” Here’s what happened at the hearing:

    During the DVPO hearing, the judge found that there was no basis for issuance of a long-term DVPO.”

    Okay, but all your evidence says that Wooton is a person on the verge of the violence which he says he will commit. This also says that Wooton constantly exceeds his authority as a police officer.

    —–

    “Follow that? “McCann’s counsel was unable to produce any acts of physical or implied violence.” “

    All this says is that Wooton has not YET committed these acts of violence. Wooton’s actions have not yet crossed over the line into crimes. But, Wooton also seems to be protected from his actions. Wooton seems to believe that he can get away with intimidating and abusing people because of his official position. He, apparently, believes that his friends on the force and in the courts will protect him.

    ” Nevertheless, three months later, Palin wrote this in an email:
    Wooten’s physical abuse of his wife is documented in their pending divorce case.”

    This what Sarah believes. Her belief is irrelevant. Perhaps, Sarah is wrong, but honestly wrong.

    “Nevertheless, Palin continued on subsequent occasions to accuse Wooten of physical abuse against Molly, “

    Sarah may have evidence which is not public knowledge.

    “and continued to reference the DVPO as proof that Wooten was physically abusive. Even though the DVPO was dissolved because the court found that “McCann’s counsel was unable to produce any acts of physical or implied violence.”

    I do not see how the court could conclude that verdict. Threatening to shoot his father-in-law is implied violence. But, The violence wasn’t directed against his wife, just against his father-in-law and sister-in-law.

    “On 9/1/08, Palin issued this statement via her lawyer:

    In 2005 and early 2006, State Trooper Mike Wooten was the subject of a court-imposed Domestic Violence Protective Order.

    http://politi.co/eC4pqY”

    I fail to see how this indicts Sarah of any wrong doing. Reminding the Alaskan Personnel Board that a DVPO was issued is not illegitimate. Failing to disclose that it was dismissed is not wrong, if she wants the APL to look into the case and decide for itself if the judge had acted inappropriately.

    Sarah is alleging that Wooton has been protected by the police and courts from actions which would have caused an ordinary citizen to go to jail. An ordinary citizen who refused to return the custody of his children to their court appointed guardian might have been charged with kidnapping. But, the cops would not force Wooton to hand over the kids because he was a police officer. This looks very bad when the cops are acting as though they are above the law.

    “Palin has repeated her defamatory claim against Wooten over and over again, for years, even though her accusation is contrary to what Palin’s sister said, and contrary to what Palin’s father said, and contrary to what was found by the court. But all this is OK with you, because “in the absence of proof, my presumption is with the accused; It’s the American way.” Right?”

    You have succeeded in proving to me that Wooton is a thug and a bully who thinks he is above the law. I am also persuaded that his friends in the police and courts have protected him from his actions.

    But, so long as no actionable case is brought against him, I don’t see him guilty of anything more than bad manners and questionable actions. I don’t like seeing anyone with his personality being a police officer. Sooner or later, he is likely to step over the line where his friends can no longer protect him.

    Arrogant politicians and public officials, who feel themselves protected by their positions, can get away with a long series of crimes. As one Southern politician (Huey Long?) put it, “I’m protected as long as I am not found drunk in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.” Another Phrase they commonly use is “raping a nun in the town square.”

    Of course, you are not opposed to arrogant officials if they are on your side, politically. Right?

  89. Louis Wheeler says:

    My reply got rather long, Jukeboxgrad, so it went into moderation. ll decided to file it in sections.

    ” ‘Palin disagrees with Branchflower’s conclusions; therefore it’s perfectly fine for her to pretend that he concluded something other than what he actually concluded.’”

    No, she doesn’t have to mention it. She can have her own opinion. She can avoid a direct answer, but she must be careful to avoid a direct contradiction. So far, I think Sarah had threaded the issue rather will. The case is dead. Branchflower’s report has vanished from public discourse, except for fanatics like you.

    She probably sees Branchflower’s conclusions as being political. If the DNC had commissioned Branchflower, rather than her enemies in the legislature, his report wouldn’t be seen as anything else but biased.

    I’m sure she wants this report to die swiftly. One way of doing that is to not make much of it. She stated her conclusion that an honest review of the evidence would be in her favor.

    “In the absence of proof, my presumption is with the accused; It’s the American way.

    Yes, your “presumption is with the accused” except if the “accused” happens to be a veteran and cop named Wooten and if the accuser happens to be named Palin. Then you look the other way when shown evidence that the accuser is a liar.”

    We haven’t looked into the accusations against Wooton, before. I didn’t know if he was guilty of anything. I hadn’t made up my mind. I was just saying that the case against Palin is impossibly weak.

    Sarah had a perfect right to fire Monegan for any reason. The question is if Sarah fired Monegan for the illegitimate reason of personal gain. The Alaskan Personnel Board said that she did not. Since they, not Branchflower, are the official report, I am willing to believe them.

  90. Louis Wheeler says:

    My reply got rather long, Jukeboxgrad, so it went into moderation. ll decided to file it in sections.

    I agree that Sarah has bad feelings toward Wooton. But, it is a stretch to contend that she would commit a crime against him or violate her ethics. Documenting the accusations against Wooton is not an abuse of power. It can be the pursuit of justice.

    “This is what Palin said in an email on 8/10/05:
    Wooten’s physical abuse of his wife is documented in their pending divorce case.
    http://bit.ly/eoHO0d (See p. 2 of the pdf.)

    I suggest that you re-read this. Sarah is making a case that Wooton is an abusive individual.

    She says that her sister is intimidated by her husband and protects herself from further abuse by not charging him with crimes.

    I don’t know if this is true. It seems evident that Sarah believes that it is. As long as she believes this, then wanting justice is served against Wooton is not illegitimate. All citizens have the responsibility to report crimes and to seek justice, even against police officers.

    “On this and many other subsequent occasions Palin accused Wooten of being physically abusive to Palin’s sister (Molly). But is it true? This is what Molly herself told police on 4/11/05:
    He has never physically abused her.”

    http://bit.ly/gZqZh7”

    Molly McCann says that she is afraid of her ex-husband and that he is very intimidating. Mental abuse is cause for a divorce or a decision in a child custody case. I never saw a definition for “physical abuse” in the document. Molly might not see being pushed and shoved as abuse, but it is assault under civil law. Wooton is described as believing that he is protected because he is a police officer. He is accused of actions which, if he were a private citizen, would cause him to be arrested and charged.

    Again, your case is not about Wooton; Sarah has committed no crime against him. Nor has Wooton against Sarah; but Todd Palin would probably clean Wooton’s clock if he did.

    ——

    “This what Palin’s father told police on 4/11/05:
    Wooten had not physically assaulted his daughter. http://bit.ly/hBWINQ”

    Yes, Wooton seems to have a pattern of being a thug and a bully. He seems to pick on weak people who will not force him to commit violence. They will not charge him with crimes, either.

    ” Here’s what happened at the hearing:

    During the DVPO hearing, the judge found that there was no basis for issuance of a long-term DVPO.”

    Okay, but your evidence says that Wooton seems to be on the verge of the violence which he says he will commit. And that Wooton constantly exceeds his authority as a police officer.

    —–

    “Follow that? “McCann’s counsel was unable to produce any acts of physical or implied violence.” “

    All this says is that Wooton has not YET committed these acts of violence; his actions have not yet crossed over the line into crimes. But, Wooton seems to believe that he can get away with intimidating and abusing people because of his official position. He, apparently, believes that his friends on the force and in the courts will protect him.

    ” Nevertheless, three months later, Palin wrote this in an email:
    Wooten’s physical abuse of his wife is documented in their pending divorce case.”

    This what Sarah believes. Her belief is irrelevant. Perhaps, Sarah is wrong, but honestly wrong. It does not prove she did anything unethical. It just gives her a motive.

    “Nevertheless, Palin continued on subsequent occasions to accuse Wooten of physical abuse against Molly, “

    Sarah may have evidence which is not public knowledge.

    “and continued to reference the DVPO as proof that Wooten was physically abusive. Even though the DVPO was dissolved because the court found that “McCann’s counsel was unable to produce any acts of physical or implied violence.”

    I do not see how the court could conclude that verdict. Threatening to shoot his father-in-law is implied violence. But, The violence wasn’t directed against his wife, just against his father-in-law and sister-in-law.

    “On 9/1/08, Palin issued this statement via her lawyer:

    In 2005 and early 2006, State Trooper Mike Wooten was the subject of a court-imposed Domestic Violence Protective Order.

    http://politi.co/eC4pqY”

    I fail to see how this indicts Sarah of any wrong doing. Reminding the Alaskan Personnel Board that a DVPO was issued is not illegitimate. Failing to disclose that it was dismissed is not wrong, if she wants the APL to look into the case and decide for itself if the judge had acted inappropriately.

    Sarah is alleging that Wooton has been protected by the police and courts from actions which would have caused an ordinary citizen to go to jail. An ordinary citizen who refused to return the custody of his children to their court appointed guardian might have been charged with kidnapping. But, the cops would not force Wooton to hand over the kids because he was a police officer. This looks very bad when the cops are acting as though they are above the law.

    “Palin has repeated her defamatory claim against Wooten over and over again, for years, even though her accusation is contrary to what Palin’s sister said, and contrary to what Palin’s father said, and contrary to what was found by the court. But all this is OK with you, because “in the absence of proof, my presumption is with the accused; It’s the American way.” Right?”

    You have succeeded in proving to me that Wooton is a thug and a bully who thinks he is above the law. I am also persuaded that his friends in the police and courts have protected him from his actions.

    But, so long as no actionable case is brought against him, I don’t see him guilty of anything more than bad manners and questionable actions. I don’t like seeing anyone with his personality being a police officer. Sooner or later, he is likely to step over the line where his friends can no longer protect him.

    Arrogant politicians and public officials, who feel themselves protected by their positions, can get away with a long series of crimes. As one Southern politician (Huey Long?) put it, “I’m protected as long as I am not found drunk in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.” Another phrase they commonly use is “raping a nun in the town square.”

    Of course, you are not opposed to arrogant officials if they are on your side, politically. Right?

  91. Louis Wheeler says:

    You have failed to prove your case, Kylopod. You have no proof that Sarah is intentionally telling falsehoods.

    I don’t have the time to correct every one of your errors in fact or logic, so I’ll try to be brief.

    “What she said wasn’t a statement of opinion but a statement of fact.”

    We have to disagree on that. That is your opinion which is not supported by facts or knowledge.

    Sarah’s remarks were not a prepared report where had a chance to consult her lawyers. She was on the campaign trail when she was asked by a Reporter over the phone for her opinion on what she called the Tasergate issue. She did not reference the Branchflower report by name.

    I went back to listen to original report and I could find no lies in it, nor statements of fact. Her statements were all about what she believed.

    http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132625

    “If she had said, “The report’s accusations of ethical abuse are unsubstantiated,” that would be an opinion. “

    You attempt to put words in her mouth and judge her harshly when she fails to say them. I can’t agree. I disagreed with Sarah that the Branchflower report could clear her of anything, since it was not official. She said it was not official.

    “>Yes, but this how you trap politicians. Their later actions don’t match their words. This makes them hypocrites.

    What fascinates me about Palin’s lies, compared with those of other pols, is their complete lack of any subtlety.”

    Perhaps, they are unsubtle, because they are all in your imagination. Again, this is about what YOU can prove. You will not credit that she could erroneously believe that it cleared her.

    “>She stated her opinion that she was cleared.”

    And I will restate that if she sincerely believed her error, then her statement cannot be a lie.

    I am breaking my response to this up in sections because it got rather long.

  92. Louis Wheeler says:

    “>You must admit that no one knew what was in the health care bill.

    No, I don’t admit it, because it isn’t true. The whole thing was available online before its passage, and several news organizations had already provided summaries of what was in it.”

    We are still finding bombshells in that law. It is over 2500 pages. How long did they review the various copies — two weeks? This not sufficient public notice.

    “>but it was passed in a midnight session when no one in Congress had read it

    I hate to break it to you, but Congresspeople do not read most bills. This has been true long before Obama entered office.”

    Oh! I have had contempt of congress for decades for doing this stuff. I’m not singling out this congress.

    “>You were about a year old when [Carter] was elected.

    Actually, I was born the day of his inauguration. No joke.”

    Then you are not responsible. It was very old news before you came to a state of reason. You may have had no way of learning the lessons from his administration. You were probably never taught in school how disastrous his administration was. Of course, this depend on were you were reared. A Leftist enclave like Berkeley no longer teaches history, let alone inconvenient history.

    “>Besides, I never said that she was cleared

    Again, your words: “If she knew that she hadn’t done anything wrong, and that Branchflower was unable to substantiate any charges, then the fact that he was unable to, proved that she was cleared.””

    I was saying that she erroneously thought she was cleared. I kept saying that I didn’t know and I hadn’t seen sufficient evidence to convict her.

    “>Many people use the rules of logic to distort the truth.

    Of course. Logic is merely a tool. “

    Yes, it’s a good way of determining if a case follows the rules of logic. It helps to quickly eliminate the absurd.

    But logic, itself, cannot prove something to be true. It often takes reality striking back at false thinkers. This is why the Bible says to look at the fruits. Bad fruit comes from bad trees; enormous pain comes from bad actions which are based on false beliefs. Our sins against reality catch up with us.

    “>My dictionary says that oral sex comes under the heading of “sexual relations.”

    I would certainly define it that way. But apparently not everyone does. “

    One of the practices of the Progressives are to muddy our thinking by false definitions.

    One example is the word, “Society.” This word, for thousands of years, had been exclusive. That is, it defined people who’s actions separated themselves from the General Public: Criminal Society, High Society, the Hoi Palloi, the bourgeois, ex cetera. The Socialists, last century, redefined the word to mean the same thing as the Citizenry or the Public.

    But, a person can be held accountable to the common meaning. Contracts are enforceable on the common terms. People have gone to jail for violating the meaning of the law, so don’t excuse Clinton for not knowing the common meanings.

    Partly, it is that the courts excuse the errors of the young, innocent, naive or ordinary people. That does not excuse people like Clinton, who is expected to know the law.

    “If Clinton believed “sexual relations” doesn’t include fellatio, then he wasn’t lying by saying he didn’t have sexual relations with her.”

    It depends on what went on in the deposition. If the opposing attorney had done his job, then he would have stated what the definition was, so that Clinton would have been forced to reply in his terms. If the attorney did not do so, then he was incompetent. Since Clinton settled out of court for 60% more than the attorney originally asked for, I am assuming that Clinton had mousetrapped himself.

    But, I have only so many hours in a day. I didn’t find this very interesting when it was happening. I’m not a judgmental person.

  93. Louis Wheeler says:

    “>You must be a relativist who believes that everyone has their own truth

    Um…have you totally forgotten what I’ve been arguing about Palin?”

    Please restate. Because you sound like a relativist.

    I am not a relativist. Sarah’s actions do not fit the definition of a lie. She can be sincerely wrong and I see no evidence which proves she is not sincere.

    I don’t place Sarah is the same corrupt political class as Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Our political masters use lies as a matter of course. I’m not being partisan either; I can name people on the Republican side as well.

    As Mark Twain put it, “America has no professional criminal class, … except for Congress.”

    “>Putting the accusations in anonymous person’s mouths does not absolve the NY Times of their responsibility.

    Anonymously sourced claims is standard practice in newspapers, including the ones you recommend below.”

    You are using a moral relativism argument here, as though the NY Times’ misdeeds are excused by other people’s sins against the truth. All this does is show how low the state of the journalistic profession is. It’s why the Public is turning its back on the Papers. They have become little better than propaganda mills.

    “>They are paying a financial price; their circulation is dropping to the floor.

    Actually, the NY Post has experienced a significantly larger drop in circulation than the Times. The fact is, the circulation of all traditional newspapers has suffered in recent years due to a mixture of the country’s economic problems and people’s increasing use of the Internet. “

    I agree that there are many factors. But, one of the factors is that the Press has shown a Leftist Bias. America is a Center Right country and moving further toward the Right because of Obama’a actions.

    “Your theory that it has something to do with a single scurrilous article is a laughable inversion of the truth. “

    I never said that it was a single article; it is the long term pattern which turns people off. What happens when nothing the Press says can be accepted as true?

    “>Newspapers are supposed to tell the truth, not gossip

    I guess so. After all, the NY Post would never stoop to printing gossip.”

    Perhaps, I should have been more precise, “The newspapers are supposed to relate what is provable in their news articles and leave their opinions and gossip to their respective pages.”

  94. jukeboxgrad says:

    We haven’t looked into the accusations against Wooton, before. I didn’t know if he was guilty of anything. I hadn’t made up my mind.

    Is there more than one Wheeler in here? Because earlier, someone using that name said this:

    A suspension was a slap on the wrist.

    If you don’t “know if he was guilty of anything,” then how are you in a position to judge that “a suspension was a slap on the wrist?” And if you don’t “know if he was guilty of anything,” then you are considering the possibility that Palin has made multiple false, defamatory statements about Wooten, over a period of years. And that seems to be OK with you.

    Anyway, thanks for admitting how little you know. “The accusations against Wooton [sic]” are central to the Troopergate matter. If you’re ignorant about those accusations, then you’re ignorant about Troopergate. Then again, we already knew that, given the various facts you got blatantly wrong. Like not knowing that Monegan had been hired by Palin, and not knowing that Wooten had already been investigated and punished. This is aside from mispelling his name a couple of dozen times.

    In my comment above (Saturday, December 11, 2010 at 13:22) I spoon fed you the facts about (some of) Palin’s lies about Wooten. I gave you names, dates, exact text and links. I cited only official documents. You have said nothing to address this, even though you’ve had time (since I posted that comment) to post about 1700 words on other issues. Obviously you are impervious to facts that might get in the way of your infatuation.

  95. jukeboxgrad says:

    Oops, one word I should never misspell is ‘misspelling.’

  96. Kylopod says:

    >Sarah’s remarks were not a prepared report where had a chance to consult her lawyers. She was on the campaign trail when she was asked by a Reporter over the phone for her opinion on what she called the Tasergate issue. She did not reference the Branchflower report by name.

    She did explicitly reference it in her interview for the NYT article that appeared online almost three hours before the ADN interview. Please don’t insult my intelligence by implying she didn’t know the Branchflower report was the topic of discussion.

    >I disagreed with Sarah that the Branchflower report could clear her of anything, since it was not official.

    Then you’re admitting she was indeed referring to the Branchflower report when she claimed to have been “cleared.” Thank you for finally clearing that up.

    >You will not credit that she could erroneously believe that it cleared her.

    I could well believe that if I saw convincing evidence that she received incorrect information about the report. But no such evidence exists, and in fact it’s clear she was familiar with the report’s findings, since she directly referenced one of them and was directly reminded by two reporters about the one stating she violated an ethics law.

    >You may have had no way of learning the lessons from [Carter’s] administration.

    In the words of Paul Begala, “I wasn’t born during the French Revolution, but I know about it.”

    >You were probably never taught in school how disastrous his administration was.

    I was practically raised on it. My parents both voted for John Anderson in 1980, the only presidential election in which they voted for a non-Democrat.

    >If the opposing attorney had done his job, then he would have stated what the definition was, so that Clinton would have been forced to reply in his terms. If the attorney did not do so, then he was incompetent.

    Paula Jones did hire expensive legal representation, but I agree the way they defined “sexual relations,” inadvertently giving Clinton a loophole, was a blunder.

    >Please restate. Because you sound like a relativist.

    My entire argument here has been that Palin objectively told a lie. I brought up the Clinton case because I found your arguments in defense of Palin to sound amusingly similar to the arguments Clinton made in his defense, except that yours were weaker. With Clinton, at least there’s evidence that some people define “sexual relations” the way he did, and therefore there’s at least some plausibility to his claim that he believed his statements weren’t technically false. With you, on the other hand, you invented out of whole cloth a completely unheard of definition of the word “cleared” to explain why Palin wasn’t intentionally stating something untrue.

    >You are using a moral relativism argument here, as though the NY Times’ misdeeds are excused by other people’s sins against the truth.

    I am doing no such thing. I asked you for examples of papers you felt have a better scorecard than the Times, and you mentioned the NY Post and Orange County Register. I am pointing out that the things you criticize about the Times are equally or more true about the papers you claim are better (particularly the Post; I am unfamiliar with OCR, though from a quick search I see it does use anonymous sourcing, as all papers do).

    >America is a Center Right country

    There we agree. Poll after poll shows that Americans more often than not prefer the policy positions of the country’s major center-right political party: the Democratic Party.

    >Perhaps, I should have been more precise, “The newspapers are supposed to relate what is provable in their news articles and leave their opinions and gossip to their respective pages.”

    Which is something the NY Post doesn’t exactly have an exemplary track record of doing.

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200903110020

  97. Louis Wheeler says:

    “We haven’t looked into the accusations against Wooton, before. I didn’t know if he was guilty of anything. I hadn’t made up my mind.

    Is there more than one Wheeler in here? Because earlier, someone using that name said this:

    A suspension was a slap on the wrist.”

    You are right; I was hasty. The Palin’s perceived his suspension being a slap on the wrist, but this is not proven. I was looking at their motives.

    I don’t really know, but Wooten’s behavior is suspect; If Wooten were not a police officer, it would fit the pattern of a petty criminal. The accusations against him portray an overweening and arrogant civil servant which I’ve seen before. There seems to be a pattern of the police protecting its own, too. Any man, as described by independent sources, who believes that he can get away with not returning his children to their court appointed guardian is out of control. The refusal of the local police to enforce the law against one its members is an abuse of power. This is troubling.

    “… if you don’t “know if he was guilty of anything,” then you are considering the possibility that Palin has made multiple false, defamatory statements about Wooten, over a period of years. And that seems to be OK with you.”

    I started with the case that you are trying to prove against Sarah Palin. Any impropriety or misuse of official powers rests on the assumption that she hated Wooten and interfered to benefit her sister in a child custody suit.

    This means that I must determine if the accusations against Wooten are reasonable. Those accusations come from many sources; this is not just from a family dispute.

    We need to look at the character of the parties involved. Does Sarah have a history of making false statements against people? I can see none. Does Sarah paint a convincing picture of a drunk, out of control, arrogant, officious man who’s actions have not yet risen to where they can no longer be covered up by his friends on the force and in the courts. Yes.

    Does anyone who associates with Wooten have reason to fear him? I’d say, so. I’d walk across the street to avoid him.

    Does this mean that these suspicions are proven? No, no more that the suspicions which you believe against Sarah; that she abused her authority in attempting to get Wooten fired and that she illegitimately fired Monegan for not reopening that case against Wooten.

    “Anyway, thanks for admitting how little you know. “The accusations against Wooton [sic]” are central to the Troopergate matter. If you’re ignorant about those accusations, then you’re ignorant about Troopergate. “

    No, I heard about this from conflicting sources; how do I decide which ones are accurate? I read about this many months ago, and haven’t thought about it since. I’ve had some relearning to do. I regret my errors and have admitted them. But, I’m not obsessed about this subject as you two seem to be. I have a life. The world is full of interesting events which draw me away.

    The accusations against Wooten are tangental. They are merely evidence to support Sarah Palin’s motives. I have nothing against either party. I merely believe that you have failed to support Sarah’s malice against Wooten. She might hate Wooten and still not be abusing her power in trying to get him fired.

    “Then again, we already knew that, given the various facts you got blatantly wrong. Like not knowing that Monegan had been hired by Palin, and not knowing that Wooten had already been investigated and punished. “

    Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay oil money lead to corruption in both political parties. Thus, Sarah acquired many enemies among the political classes. There is no proof that Monegan was involved, but ill feeling may have been there because she sent prominent associates of his to jail. Monegan was not cooperative with Sarah’s administration, which why she says he got fired.

    Part of Sarah’s position is that Wooten was insufficiently punished. She tried and failed to correct this. It is nothing more than an opinion of yours that she acted out of personal gain rather than out of her civic responsibility.

    “This is aside from mispelling his name a couple of dozen times.”

    You can know a person has lost an argument on the internet when they start bring up trivialities like grammar and spelling.

    “In my comment above (Saturday, December 11, 2010 at 13:22) I spoon fed you the facts about (some of) Palin’s lies about Wooten. I gave you names, dates, exact text and links. I cited only official documents. “

    Yes, I thank you. It was your sources which made me conclude that your assumptions were in error. But, this is only as it should be, since the burden of proof is on you. I need not prove anything.

  98. Louis Wheeler says:

    “>Sarah’s remarks were not a prepared report where had a chance to consult her lawyers. She was on the campaign trail when she was asked by a Reporter over the phone for her opinion on what she called the Tasergate issue. She did not reference the Branchflower report by name.

    She did explicitly reference it in her interview for the NYT article that appeared online almost three hours before the ADN interview.”

    Your chronology is suspect. Are you talking about the “The Caucus” article? I saw no other NYTimes article cited in this thread. How could it be before the ADN interview when it took quotes from it? First, came a phone interview, which I assume was broadcast and then the interview was published in other places like ADN and NYTimes.

    “Please don’t insult my intelligence by implying she didn’t know the Branchflower report was the topic of discussion.”

    I was talking about her phone interview. Your assertions about her lying are from it. I’m sure she knew she was talking about Branchflower. My point was that she was talking about the evidence of the case. She did not directly confront Branchflower’s conclusions.

    One of the things which bothered me about the phone interview was how incompetent the reporters were. There was a perfect time to clarify Sarah’s position just after her statement. If the first question had been, “How can you believe that you are cleared of wrong doing when Branchflower’s #1 conclusion was that you abused your official powers.” I would have liked to hear her response.

    “>You will not credit that she could erroneously believe that it cleared her.

    I could well believe that if I saw convincing evidence that she received incorrect information about the report. “

    And she is guilty until proven innocent. Right?

    I want you to remember that this was an Ad Hoc interview two days after Branchflower’s report was issued. She was very busy on the campaign trail. We do not know how much time she could give to this. Her errors in judgement are explainable. Also, she would have looked indecisive if she changed her opinion later. That would have been used against her, so she kept repeating her case.

    “But no such evidence exists, and in fact it’s clear she was familiar with the report’s findings, since she directly referenced one of them and was directly reminded by two reporters about the one stating she violated an ethics law.”

    Of course, she was personally involved in the case, but that doesn’t mean that she had the time to pour over the document with a fine toothed comb. People often see what they want to see in a report.

    Her being reminded was after she had made her statement. The reporter was speaking out of turn, so she never addressed this.

    “>You may have had no way of learning the lessons from [Carter’s] administration.

    In the words of Paul Begala, “I wasn’t born during the French Revolution, but I know about it.””

    You know about it vicariously, not personally. This means that you are reading other people’s interpretation of events and this is where errors can creep in.

    I lived through Carter administration; It was what moved me away from being a Democrat. I started to reexamine what I believed. I rejected Socialism and Progressivism. But, I never became a Republican until 2002. I had problems in 2000 which prevented me from voting. I had moved and forgot to register in my new location. But, I followed the controversy.

  99. jukeboxgrad says:

    The accusations against him portray an overweening and arrogant civil servant which I’ve seen before.

    The most serious “accusations against him” were found by a court to be unsubstantiated. But you have no problem with Palin continuing to make those accusations, and falsely implying that the court agreed with her. Because “in the absence of proof, my presumption is with the accused; It’s the American way.” Right?

    There seems to be a pattern of the police protecting its own

    And that “pattern” includes the judge who found that “McCann’s counsel was unable to produce any acts of physical or implied violence.” Right? So the Republicans who appointed Branchflower can’t be trusted, and Branchflower can’t be trusted, and Monegan can’t be trusted, and Wooten can’t be trusted, and the police and the judge can’t be trusted, because the only honest party in this story is Sarah Palin. Right? And even Palin’s father and sister can’t be trusted, because they both made statements contradicting Palin’s claim that Wooten was physically abusive to Molly. All these other people are wrong, and the only one who is telling the truth is Sarah Palin. Right?

    Any man, as described by independent sources, who believes that he can get away with not returning his children to their court appointed guardian is out of control.

    Why are you describing the Palin family as “independent sources?” Where is your evidence that Wooten “believes that he can get away with not returning his children to their court appointed guardian?”

    Aside from that, you are completely off the deep end, because no one (including and especially the Palin family) has ever accused Wooten of believing “that he can get away with not returning his children to their court appointed guardian.” What “court appointed guardian?” There was no “court appointed guardian.”

    The refusal of the local police to enforce the law against one its members is an abuse of power.

    Where is there evidence of a “refusal of the local police to enforce the law against one its members?” On 10/29/05, the Alaska State Troopers issued a Memorandum of Findings, describing the results of their investigation into the allegations brought against Wooten by the Palin family. That Memorandum is here:

    http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site163/2008/0717/20080717_062016_641.pdf

    The Memorandum reports that most of the allegations against Wooten were found to be either “Not Founded” or “Not Sustained.” When did Palin ever show proof that this Memorandum is wrong, and that it represents a “refusal of the local police to enforce the law against one its members?”

    I started with the case that you are trying to prove against Sarah Palin. Any impropriety or misuse of official powers rests on the assumption that she hated Wooten and interfered to benefit her sister in a child custody suit.

    Wrong. I proved that she lied about Wooten physically abusing Molly. This lie is self-evident, and it doesn’t require making any assumptions “that she hated Wooten and interfered to benefit her sister in a child custody suit.” Those things are also obvious, but I don’t have to know or assume those things in order to demonstrate the lie.

    This means that I must determine if the accusations against Wooten are reasonable. Those accusations come from many sources; this is not just from a family dispute.

    Wrong again. VIrtually all the witnesses are either members of the Palin family, or close friends of the family. No one outside of that group has ever made any serious accusation against Wooten. If you have proof of such a thing, then show it.

    Like Palin, you enjoy inventing facts and accusations that are backed by no proof.

  100. jukeboxgrad says:

    Does Sarah paint a convincing picture of a drunk, out of control, arrogant, officious man who’s actions have not yet risen to where they can no longer be covered up by his friends on the force and in the courts. Yes.

    Except that Palin’s “convincing picture” is stunningly devoid of proof, and found to be contrary to the reality described not just by the police and the court, but also by Palin’s father and sister. But this is no problem for you, because “in the absence of proof, my presumption is with the accused; It’s the American way.” Right?

    Since you’re so easily impressed by Palin’s ability to “paint a convincing picture,” you should take a look at this “convincing picture:”

    It is my pleasure to provide character reference examples for Mr. Mike Wooten. Since I have become acquainted with Mike I continue to be impressed with his integrity, work ethic, community spirit and trustworthiness.

    … On a personal note, I have witnessed Mike’s gift of calm and kindness towards many young kids here in Wasilla. I have never seen him raise his voice, nor lose patience, nor become aggitated [sic], in the presence of any child. Instead, Mike consistently remains a fine role model for my own children and other young people in Wasilla. I wish America had more people with the grace and sincerity that mirrors the character of Mike Wooten. We would have a much kinder calmer trustworthy nation as a result.

    I believe the United States Air Force has been fortunate to have the services of Mike these past 10 years. His work ethic, his American patriotism, his obvious dedication to traditional values, and his strong faith in God and truth is witnessed in Mike’s everyday living.

    It is an honor to know Mike and I am confident that he will continue to grow in character and internal strength as he moves through life. I do not hesitate in praising this man…

    http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site163/2008/0721/20080721_111415_PalinLetterofRecomend.pdf

    Palin wrote those words on 1/1/00, five years before the divorce. So I guess there are two possibilities. One possibility is that over that period of five years, Wooten mysteriously transformed himself from a saint into a monster (and managed to do this in such a way that only people named Palin were in a position to notice the transformation). And here’s the other possibility: that once her sister was involved in a divorce and bitter custody battle, Palin was willing to change her tune in order to try to help her sister. You obviously think the first possibility is more likely than the second. Really?

  101. jukeboxgrad says:

    Does this mean that these suspicions are proven? No.

    Your willingness to recreate reality in order to suit your own needs is quite remarkable. Please consider these two statements:

    A) I have “suspicions” that Wooten has committed physical abuse against Molly. These suspicions are not necessarily “proven.”

    B) It’s a documented fact that Wooten has committed physical abuse against Molly.

    Can you grasp that A and B are materially different? You are conveniently pretending that Palin said A, even though she didn’t say A. She said B. Palin did not say she had “suspicions” about Wooten. Palin said this:

    Wooten’s physical abuse of his wife is documented in their pending divorce case.

    That is not a report of “suspicions.” It’s a factual claim: that Wooten has commited “physical abuse” against Molly, and this “physical abuse” is “documented.” So it’s not just that Palin made a factual accusation (which is more than just “suspicions”). She also claimed that her factual accusation is “documented,” that is, supported by written proof. Trouble is, that’s a lie. She told this lie three months after a court found that “McCann’s counsel was unable to produce any acts of physical or implied violence.”

    I do not see how the court could conclude that verdict.

    Maybe you should consider the possibility that the judge is familiar with the evidence, and you are not.

    Threatening to shoot his father-in-law is implied violence.

    Molly and Sarah waited weeks before reporting this alleged threat. How is this compatible with the idea that the threat was actually made, and that it was a serious threat, taken seriously?

    Reminding the Alaskan Personnel Board that a DVPO was issued is not illegitimate. Failing to disclose that it was dismissed is not wrong

    In this and other instances Palin referenced the DVPO as proof that Wooten is violent. Trouble is, that’s false. The issuance of the DVPO was not based on a finding that Wooten was violent. On the contrary: the DVPO was dissolved because the court found no evidence of violence. Palin has repeatedly referenced the DVPO in a deceptive manner. She is taking advantage of the fact that to a layman, the issuance of a DVPO is assumed to be proof of violence.

    She says that her sister is intimidated by her husband and protects herself from further abuse by not charging him with crimes.

    What a remarkable example of how you routinely invent your own facts. Where did Palin ever say “that her sister is intimidated by her husband and protects herself from further abuse by not charging him with crimes?” Palin never said that. What Palin actually said is directly contrary to that. Palin said “Wooten’s physical abuse of his wife is documented in their pending divorce case.” If it was true that Molly was “intimidated by her husband and protects herself from further abuse by not charging him with crimes,” then the last thing Molly would have done is make “documented” allegations of “physical abuse.”

  102. jukeboxgrad says:

    All this says is that Wooton has not YET committed these acts of violence.

    Are you a believer in time travel? If “Wooton has not YET committed these acts of violence,” then Palin’s claim (“Wooten’s physical abuse of his wife is documented in their pending divorce case”) is false.

    This what Sarah believes. Her belief is irrelevant. Perhaps, Sarah is wrong, but honestly wrong.

    If you can imagine that Palin’s claim (“Wooten’s physical abuse of his wife is documented in their pending divorce case”) was “honestly wrong,” then you’re quite imaginative, and you can imagine that any lie is “honestly wrong.” You are conveniently pretending to not notice that she made this “honestly wrong” statement over and over again, over a period of years. There is no plausible explanation for this that embodies the concept of “honestly.”

    She might hate Wooten and still not be abusing her power in trying to get him fired.

    If her process of “trying to get him fired” was legitimate and not an abuse of power, then why did she hide it and deny it? Why didn’t she just do it openly? This is one of many questions I’ve asked before that you’ve ignored.

    There is no proof that Monegan was involved, but ill feeling may have been there because she sent prominent associates of his to jail.

    Yet another indication of how you are familiar with Palin folklore, but not facts. Palin sent this many “prominent” people to jail: zero. Your phony claim is often-repeated, and addressed here:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/sarah-palins-accomplishments/

    You also have zero evidence that Palin ever made trouble for people who were “associates” of Monegan. Yet again, you prefer to reach conclusions based on pure unfounded speculation, while ignoring proven facts.

    Part of Sarah’s position is that Wooten was insufficiently punished.

    Yes, we know this is her “position.” Trouble is, the facts show that her “position” is based on fiction.

    She tried and failed to correct this.

    This amounts to double jeopardy. This is one of many things you have failed to explain. Palin wanted Wooten to be punished again, even though he had already been punished. Palin knew this was double jeopardy, and she knew that double jeopardy is wrong, and that’s why she conducted her vendetta secretly, trying to hide and deny it. If what she was doing was legitimate, she would have and should have made no effort to hide it.

    If she felt that Wooten was “insufficiently punished” and wanted “to correct this,” then why not simply write a memo firing Wooten, on her first day in office? If her accusations against Wooten are true, then this would have been the correct action for her to take. Instead, she pressured Monegean covertly. Why?

    It was your sources which made me conclude that your assumptions were in error.

    This is gibberish. What are you talking about? I showed you official documents which demonstrate that Palin’s accusation of “documented” physical abuse is a lie. Where have I made “assumptions” that are “in error?”

    Branchflower’s report has vanished from public discourse, except for fanatics like you.

    Palin is going to run, and lots of these inconvenient facts that you have ignored are going to be reintroduced to “public discourse” by the campaigns of her R opponents. And then it will be entertaining to watch her supporters attempt to deny reality, as you have done so vividly.

  103. Kylopod says:

    >Your chronology is suspect.

    My chronology came from looking at the times in which these articles were posted:

    NYT: 1:45 pm
    ADN: 4:28 pm

    I did make one error, however. I forgot to account for the time-zone difference.

    Interestingly, though, after doing the math, I see it enhances rather than detracts from my point. Alaska’s time is four hours earlier than New York’s. So I was correct that the NYT article appeared before the ADN one, only it wasn’t a difference of three hours but seven!

    >How could it be before the ADN interview when it took quotes from it?

    It didn’t take any quotes from it. The quotes are similar but not identical, suggesting that Palin was saying the same stuff to different reporters that day.

    >If the first question had been, “How can you believe that you are cleared of wrong doing when Branchflower’s #1 conclusion was that you abused your official powers.” I would have liked to hear her response.

    I’m afraid you’d be disappointed. She’d just sidestep the question and start talking about the report’s finding that the firing itself was kosher, the way she did in the NYT interview.

    >Of course, she was personally involved in the case, but that doesn’t mean that she had the time to pour over the document with a fine toothed comb.

    The section of the report laying out its “findings” was short and readable:

    http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132565

    We know she read that section, because in an article posted online seven hours before the ADN interview, she kept referring to the report’s second finding. If she knew of its second finding, then how could she not know of its first?

    >And she is guilty until proven innocent.

    Not at all. Her stating something factually incorrect may or may not indicate deceit. But the evidence suggests she knew the truth before making her false assertion, and she was reminded of the truth twice before repeating her false assertion.

  104. Louis Wheeler says:

    Note: I delayed posting the last half of my rebuttal, because I was warned against posting too often, today. I will take up my comments against your latest missive tomorrow. It does appear that I am running out of excuses to talk to you. It is fruitless to converse with unreasonable people.

    I will also make my remarks as brief as possible, because a detailed reply has been unsuccessful. It is impossible to reason people out of a conclusion that they never reasoned themselves into.

    “>If the opposing attorney had done his job, then he would have stated what the definition was, so that Clinton would have been forced to reply in his terms. If the attorney did not do so, then he was incompetent.

    Paula Jones did hire expensive legal representation, but I agree the way they defined “sexual relations,” inadvertently giving Clinton a loophole, was a blunder.”

    I also dislike the way that you compared Sarah’s Ad Hoc remarks with Clinton’s prepared ones. Clinton had months to prepare for his deposition. He knew what topics he would be asked about. He has expert legal help. He knew he was under oath. He had been trained in the law so he knew the penalties for perjury. Hence, any deviation from the truth was unlikely to be accidental.

    Sarah’s remarks could be false, but not reveal an intention to lie. People often persist in errors in thinking even when confronted. This does not make them manipulative, insane or odd, just human.

    I don’t believe people like yourself are insane. You, on the Left, seems to be caught up in a strange materialistic cult. Cultist often resist any evidence which would correct their thinking.

    “>Please restate. Because you sound like a relativist.

    My entire argument here has been that Palin objectively told a lie.”

    Your use of the word ‘objective’ is indicative. It means that you have closed your mind to any alternative. Another word for the same condition is bigoted:
    adjective
    obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions : a bigoted group of reactionaries.
    • expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.

    You failed to prove your case. I’ve read and heard Sarah’s interview many times. She was stating her opinion. I also believe that her opinion was untrue, she had not been cleared of anything until two weeks later.

    That makes her in error, but if she believed her statement was true then she was not lying. I am willing to give her the benefits of my doubts. You are not.

    This is a simple definition; it is in most dictionaries. The fact that you will not consider it is evidence of your bias.

    “I brought up the Clinton case because I found your arguments in defense of Palin to sound amusingly similar to the arguments Clinton made in his defense, except that yours were weaker. “

    The circumstances were vastly different. Sarah was not under oath; she did not have much time to prepare. She may have not had legal advise regarding her statement. She might have been naive in thinking that her remarks would not be out of context as you are doing.

    “With Clinton, at least there’s evidence that some people define “sexual relations” the way he did, “

    Who cares what those people believe? This is a moral equivalence argument. Only a relativist would use it.

    Those people were not in the room with Clinton. Their false beliefs do not alibi him.

    The question is whether Clinton knowingly lied under oath. The preponderance of the evidence is that he did. His paying Paula Jones more than her attorney had originally asked for to drop the case leads an honest person to believe that Clinton knew how much danger he was in. You tend to take s plea bargain, when you know that you are caught and the penalty for a trial would be worse. It can be presumed as an admission of guilt.

    “and therefore there’s at least some plausibility to his claim that he believed his statements weren’t technically false. “

    You are deluded. He was under oath to tell the whole truth. A technical exception or a mental reservation does not absolve him. As a lawyer, he should have known this, but the sad historical fact is that the more a person learns about the law, the less honest they tend to become.

    “With you, on the other hand, you invented out of whole cloth a completely unheard of definition of the word “cleared” to explain why Palin wasn’t intentionally stating something untrue.”

    I gave you the definition in my Apple dictionary. I’ve checked about ten other online dictionaries and they say essentially the same thing.

    Here is the free dictionary by Ferlex:
    v’. cleared, clear·ing, clears
    v.tr.

    8. To free from a legal charge or imputation of guilt; acquit: “cleared the suspect of the murder charge.”’

    The only difference that I can see is that my original definition uses the word ‘official.’ There was nothing official about Branchflower’s report.

    Of course, Leftists often dislike labels and definitions because that pins them down to what they believe in, so they can’t weasle out of an argument when confronted. But, if a Leftist won’t be pinned dpwn to what he believes, then he isn’t intellectually honest. He is nothing more than a propagandist.

    “>You are using a moral relativism argument here, as though the NY Times’ misdeeds are excused by other people’s sins against the truth.

    I am doing no such thing. I asked you for examples of papers you felt have a better scorecard than the Times, and you mentioned the NY Post and Orange County Register.”

    We live in an imperfect world. But, we can be judged by ethical standards.

    Even if every newspaper in the world violated those standards then that would not make them untrue or the New York Times less guilty of violating them. This is a moral equivalence argument. You are either profoundly ignorant of logic or your biases are misleading you. Of course, you may have no interest in the truth.

    “>America is a Center Right country

    There we agree. Poll after poll shows that Americans more often than not prefer the policy positions of the country’s major center-right political party: the Democratic Party.”

    Sorry, The last election should have persuaded you, otherwise. The next election is likely to throw the Democrat Party out of power for another generation.

    A political realignment is taking place, as evidenced by the TEA Party movement. Ordinary Americans are disgusted with both parties. It is not clear to me that either party will last ten years.

    You seem deluded about what the word “Right” means. It means Conservative. George Washington University has been asking the same questions in its Battleground Poll for twenty-five years. The findings haven’t changed more than several percent. Sixty percent of American’s consider themselves to be either Conservative or very Conservative while just above 20 percent consider themselves Communists, Socialists, Liberals or Leftists. Other questions confirm that the respondent knows the meanings of the terms.

    A Liberal or Leftist believes in giving the government power over our lives and tends to be anti-free market. A Conservative tends to believe in the traditional Constitutional system which was evident before the 1920s and in keeping the government out of the markets and the lives of its peaceful citizens.

    “>Perhaps, I should have been more precise, “The newspapers are supposed to relate what is provable in their news articles and leave their opinions and gossip to their respective pages.”

    Which is something the NY Post doesn’t exactly have an exemplary track record of doing.”

    Again, you are using a moral equivalence argument. You are arguing the equivalent of “If Johnny takes drugs, gets drunk, has wild unprotected sex, lies to his parents about it and doesn’t go to class, then I have the right to do that too.” Your parents should have persuaded you of the illegitimacy of this argument, when you were in your teens.

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200903110020

    Your reliance on Media Matters shows exactly where your values are. They are further to the left than Pravda now. If it is your source of unbiased news, no wonder you cannot think clearly.

  105. jukeboxgrad says:

    There was nothing official about Branchflower’s report.

    Really? Are you sure? Then I wonder why Palin went out of her way to make many statements indicating her support for the Branchflower investigation:

    On July 29, Palin’s spokesperson said “the governor has said all along that she will fully cooperate with an investigation and her staff will cooperate as well.”[156]

    On August 13, an official press release stated “Governor Palin has directed all of her staff to cooperate fully with Branchflower.”[157]

    On August 29, Palin’s attorney wrote to Branchflower: “Please know that we intend to cooperate with this investigation … I would like to review our calendars to schedule depositions of witnesses.”[158]

    On August 30, the McCain campaign said “Governor Palin is an open book on this — she did nothing wrong and has nothing to hide. … she has been happy to cooperate fully in the inquiry of this matter. … The legislature and Attorney General are both currently reviewing the circumstances of Walt Monegan’s departure … and the Governor is fully cooperating with those inquiries.”[159]

    On August 30, the Washington Times reported that Palin knew Branchflower by reputation, and welcomed the investigation: “I know he’s a prosecutor, probably a heavy duty prosecutor, and so that kind of puzzles us why we are going down that road when we are very, very open to answering any questions anybody has of me or administrators … But I think this process will bode well for the state of Alaska and our administration, having a review committee of those experts in public safety, in the trooper organization.”[80]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal#Intent_to_cooperate

    Those statements of enthusiasm and support (“this process will bode well for the state of Alaska”) don’t make much sense if “there was nothing official about Branchflower’s report.”

    What she said on 10/11/08 (“I’m very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there, very pleased to be cleared of any of that”) doesn’t make any sense, either, if your claim is correct. You’re claiming that Branchflower lacked the power to reach any kind of official conclusion. Then how does Palin’s statement make sense?

    If “there was nothing official about Branchflower’s report” how could it make sense for Palin to claim that it “cleared” her? Either she disagrees with you, and understands that the report’s conclusions should indeed be considered “official,” or she was being deceptive, and claiming that she had been “cleared” by a report that had no official power to do that. So choose your poison. Either way, your argument loses.