Not the Daily Show! Noooo!!!
Then you’re not the target of my barb here.
Purely in the interests of consistency, shouldn’t you be bitching at the SDMB’s right wing for not bringing the Palin story to light?
Nuh-UH! Cheney doesn’t live in the Batcave.
Sadly but unsurprisingly, even committed liberal alt-comix cannot spell ‘Massachusetts’ correctly.
Most impressive.
Sorry, couldn’t help myself. Carry on.
If it had gone 8 hours without the thread being started, then yes.
You may be missing the point of this pit. The problem is not that Palin is denying the accusation. It would be bizarre if she didn’t. Everyone expects here to present her side in the media. Just as it is expected that ACORN presents its side. The problem is the McCain/Palin campaign is presenting this as an authoritative investigation of the issue. The only way this would be the same as the ACORN statement would be if ACORN convened their own review panel and declared themselves cleared.
To reiterate, there is no problem with releasing a statement presenting your side of the story. Nor, IMHO, is it hypocritical to give more weight to some statements than others. We as individuals can then decide how much weight to put on that. Some may think they DOJ is more trustworthy than ACORN, some may think Palin is more trustworthy the Alaska legislature. Some may have reasonable concerns, some may be blindly biased, but that is not hypocritical. Otherwise juries would have to throw out or accept all testimony instead of evaluating each witness on a case by case basis.
Jonathan
Have you ever seen Carol Stream and Sarah Palin in the same room together? :dubious:
Oh.
Well, when you explain it like that, all reasonable-like…
OK, fair point.
That you needed to have the distinction between a private organization issuing a defensive press release and an elected politician issuing a self-exculpatory report under ostensibly official cover explained to you tells us everything we need to know.
You’re all misinterpreting this entire thing.
It’s not Palin’s campaign releasing a self-serving “official” clearing.
It’s a maverick investigation, which resulted in a maverick report. Oh, perhaps it’s not exactly an official report, but this is the sort of thing a maverick would do; take the bull by the horns and, like a true maverick, issue a maverick representation of the facts. Only a maverick would have the guts to take on the elitist law enforcement lobby and do such a maverick thing.
Also, in order to solve the financial crisis, she and McCain are going to print and distribute “Maverick Bucks.”
If the Pubbies are going to keep using the word “maverick”, I think an official 1 to 5 “Maverick” scale to gauge these “mavericks” is in order.
1-Brent
2-Beau
3-Bart
4-Bret
5-Pappy*
*A “Pappy” maverick is one that is talked about in reverence, but is never actually seen in public.
Man, you really are a dick, aren’t you?
This thread was about Palin’s self-serving announcement clearing herself of any wrong doing.
Your response was essentially, “Oh yea, well what about ACORN?” Doesn’t matter that you condemn them both. You dragged ACORN in here to mitigate outrage.
Hence … tu quoque. But you know what, I just yanked that out to be funny, even though it does apply. I could care less about the Latin language’s take on various debating techniques. What bugs me is your little hissy fits every time one of your boys takes a sock to the puss.
So feel free to keep your little index cards of Democrat misdeeds for the next time McCain or Palin fucks something up. I’m sure it will serve you just as well.
I’m gonna go way out on a limb and say that I presume that she committed no criminal wrongdoing and that she is entitled to release a report saying so and I’ll go so far as to believe her claim of no criminal wrongdoing until a jury (in court or impeachment hearings) says otherwise.
As for her being incredibly stupid in having pursued this vendetta against her BIL and politically venal, I have to concede that in the face of overwhelming evidence.
As for the political savviness of releasing a report exonerating her entirely, I find it amazingly entertaining.
I admittedly didn’t get too far in the rather inane gotcha-ya ACORN thread; maybe twenty or thirty replies before I was comfortable that there wasn’t a nugget of substance somewhere in there.
Also, since I don’t subscribe to the GOPAC strategy of attacking the, well, GOPAC-labeled “MSM” in order to bolster the credibility of a party-affiliated media outlets, the overblown kerfuffle over ACORN didn’t make me want to shout “outrage!”.
Admissions aside, I don’t believe the two attempts at self-exoneration make for an apt comparison. Therefore, raising a hue and cry because people are reacting differently to the two attempts seems, I don’t know, out of place?
The quickest way to describe my inclinations in this regard is to draw a shaky analogy and hope you read it for comprehension rather than nit-hunting. Courts generally allow an exception to the hearsay rule for regularly conducted business practices. This certainly doesn’t mean the court accepts the practices or asserted evidence as true, but there is enough additional baseline credence to permit the fact finder to hear and weigh the credibility of the proffered claim. In ACORN’s case, it seems that their assertions were largely based on reports of how they normally conduct business (e.g., they investigate/check for duplicates, they do not pay commission for registrations obtained).
Clearly these assertions are subject to investigation and should not be taken at face value. However, until something comes along to contradict these practices, many reasonable people would accept them as suggestive of a lack of wide-spread intentional fraud.
The Palin Campaign report does not share this modicum of credibility — it is completely self-serving, apparently contradictory of past statements, and extraordinarily political in nature (e.g., how is Wooten’s general evilness germane to whether Palin et al overstepped their authority?).
I would like to reserve the right to backtrack or revise my opinion, if I could only find the Campaign report (even Fox New’s link leads nowhere), or if the official report strays too far from conventional wisdom.
He’s chock full of mavericky maverickness.
This one does, actually. A statement of innocence, or of a view of the facts, no. But this attempt to reduce the importance of the official findings by issuing an “official” report which those of weak minds in the MSM might feel required to be given equal time, yes. It seems an indication of desperation, and a seeming unwillingness to let the public judge just on facts, not false conclusions.
As for ACORN, since I don’t have the chance to vote for or against them, I don’t give a crap either way.
Am I the only one who doesn’t know what ACORN means?
Absolutely accepted it as necessarily true? Not me, that’s for sure.
Considered it potentially plausible, pending further investigation? A lot of us, no doubt.
I’d also point out that in many cases of submitting false registrations, it was ACORN itself that first flagged and reported the invalid names to electoral officials. No, that doesn’t prove that the organization had no complicity or malicious intent in submitting the false names, but at least it’s a sizeable step in favor of transparency. If Palin had been the first one to point out publicly that her behavior on the Troopergate issue raised questions of a potential conflict of interest, I would be much more inclined to seriously consider the possibility that her later self-exoneration might be credible.
By the way, Bricker, I note with disdain your partisan double standard in not being the first to bring up this issue which reflects poorly on your fellow conservatives. Blatant righty hypocrite.
Little Bricker attempts the Chewbacca defense yet again, and still people don’t just tell him to STFU and quit trolling…
-Joe