Karma’s a bitch, Sarah.
BTW, the ‘Palling around with terrorists’ line was given to Palin by the McCain campaign. She didn’t ‘go rogue’ and say it - she was told to.
Not according to Newsweek:
Yeah, that’s the way I see it. McCain’s staffers are working hard on his ‘legacy’. He didn’t get the name McNasty for nothing. I feel a bit bad for Palin, but she’s a grown woman, and I think she did know what was going on. I don’t think she was so naive as to not understand what was being asked of her. She played her part, took one for the team, and that’s that. I think she should work on making a more wholesome image for next time. In one of the interviews I saw rebutting all this stuff, she didn’t look anywhere near as polished as she did during the campaign, and it suited her. She needs to find a happy medium between the two personas.
I think she did ‘Go rogue’ later on in the campaign, but I don’t think it was for the nasty stuff. I think she felt like the McCain camp wasn’t doing right by her, so she opened herself up more and was more willing to speak off script. Bottom line, she didn’t know what she needed to know, but now she knows what she doesn’t know.
I hate seeing this hatred of Palin. Sure she’s part of that looney Evangelical fringe, and those who have no sympathy for looney Evangelicals won’t have sympathy for her, but I think the McCain aids are trying for damage control. ‘It’s not that we didn’t handle her properly, it’s that she was a wild woman.’
Who is the source? That’s the question you have to ask when campaigns disintegrate and people start talking out of school.
May be true, may not be. Regardless, the party wanted more hay about Ayers. All I heard for six months on conservative boards was hay about, “Why isn’t anyone mentioning Ayers?”
Ah, the ever popular Nuremberg defense “I was just following orders” that usually does not turn out so well…
:rolleyes:
This has got to fall under a Godwin addendum or something.
Mentioning Bill Ayers (which your electorate desperately wants you to do) is not quite the same as murdering Jews.
It came from the special report they do for every presidential campaign, described by Newsweek as “a seven-part in-depth look behind the scenes of the campaign, consisting of exclusive behind-the-scenes reporting from the McCain and Obama camps assembled by a special team of reporters who were granted year-long access on the condition that none of their findings appear until after Election Day.”
There’s not a named source in the article, but it’s not coming from out of left field, either.
Lowry again:
That’s at least as definitive as the ‘unnamed sources’ Newsweek’s got.
False analogy. I was not equating her statements to murdering anybody. Sam was suggesting that Palin was opposed to the “Palin around with terrorists” comment but that she did it because she was ordered by McCain to do it. This is part and parcel with the current trend to attempt to rehabilitate her tarnished image and it is not only ineffectual but counter factual as well. If she felt that the comment was out of line she should have said so at the time, to claim that she was following orders does not absolve her rather implies she is a spineless drone. Not an effective defense.
Of course, those would be good points if I said anything of the sort. All I said was that the McCain campaign gave her those lines. I said nothing about her being opposed to them. I have no idea if she was. What I was refuting was the notion that she went ‘rogue’ and said that stuff, and all the blame was on her, and McCain’s campaign had nothing to do with it.
But I don’t hate Palin. I like her. It’s just that, like most people I know, she’s not qualified to be President. It’s fairly obvious that she hadn’t given much thought to national politics before August 2008 – again, like most Americans.
Now I don’t like her vendetta against the State trooper and the firing of his boss, and I see no evidence that she’s a particularly effective manager of state or township. But it’s nothing personal.
I don’t see why these campaign insiders should be seen as equivalent to the National Enquirer. After all, the general story has been substantiated by more than one source, and Palin hasn’t provided any detailed rebuttal.
Sam: Do you honestly believe that Palin is the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan? You haven’t claimed that, but I think it’s worth noting that she’s very different from the Gipper. Liberals like myself may have thought that Reagan was simplistic [1], but everyone understood that the man loved policy (and political anecdote), ever since he shilled for General Electric in the 1950s. Palin in contrast was simply disinterested up to the age of 44.
BTW: The “Former campaign aide” sounds like Randy Scheunemann, who sent out angry emails insisting that “Paling around” was approved by the McCain camp. Cite. Towards the end of the campaign Sheunemann was given the heave-ho, though not actually fired.
I say that they’re all smear artists, and it will take a while to sort through the conflicting claims.
Regardless, the law should be upheld.
[1] …or a great communicator, in conservative parlance.
. .
Plenty of people make public appearances for their preferred candidate without getting $4,000 worth of free swag for it.
On National Review, Rich Lowry Reports:
You’ll excuse me if I doubt whether Starburst Boy’s is entirely objective, or keeps enough of his blood supply in the larger head, when writing on this subject.
OK, I’ll consider the possibility that some “unknown campaign staffer” forged the RNC’s monthly financial disclosure forms, and that this somehow went undetected until now.
[pause]
OK, didn’t take me very long to reject that particular absurdity.
Funny, all I’ve been seeing lately is Republicans doing it again, in a ploy to 1)escape accountability for the electoral fiasco and 2)play “Now, you die, and we all move up in rank!” for 2012.
Do we have confirmed news that Todd Palin got to keep the suit? If not, then he didn’t get $4000 worth of free swag either.
There really isn’t a good spin to this - either the RNC accounting is so screwed up that campaign records show $150,000 worth of clothes going to Palin that didn’t go to Palin - or the clothes went to Palin.
Its the old “incompetent or unethical” problem - you can claim to be ethical - but in order to do so, someone in a position of power in the RNC needs to be incompetent. You can claim to be competent - then someone doesn’t look very ethical.
(And it may not be Palin being either incompetent or unethical - but someone at the RNC is either one or the other, or possibly both - and incompetent is really not a great excuse).
Does the idea of personally tailored men’s, women’s and children’s clothing worth $150,000 being donated strike anyone as a potential news story?
I don’t doubt for a second that an outfit worth 5 grand, worn or twice on the campaign trail by Sarah Palin, or a member of her family, would fetch several times 5 grand in a charity auction attended by rich Republicans–pretty easy to arrange, too. I’m amazed that this fire hasn’t been thoroughly extinguished by the date, location, etc. of that charity event having been announced days ago.
[Republican operative]It’s not a problem for us. We’ll do both![/RO]