Comments on: The Education of Sarah Palin

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:42:56 +0000

Wow–even my comment about the comments being out of order is now way out of order!!

By: CStanley

CStanley — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:19:56 +0000

Oh and Jazz, feel free to keep my comments bookmarked as you suggested you would. And:

"Don’t you just hate it when you’re right?"

Yeah, I just hate it.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:50:28 +0000

So, does this settle it then, or are there other friend's divorce papers that we need to look into now? I mean, you never know, right?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/05/another-p...

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 05:38:49 +0000

Well, to a lot of people's surprise here, I think this should be looked into now. Actions are starting to happen that suggest there is some real grain of truth to the affair story, and the reality of it being true or not needs to be established.

I actual have found, particularly in political stories, the NE has become quite the successful and correct early breaker of true stories. Don't dismiss it out of hand.

If there is anything behind it, yes, the hypocrisy of presenting yourself as a 'family values' candidate while having affairs is difficult to reconcile for a very large portion of the voting public, particularly the Religious Right wing of the Republican party, which is her base.

As for the Clinton comparison, well, as he was NEVER a 'family values' kind of guy, so I didn't have an issue with his infidelity per se. It was the totality of the circumstances - young intern (abuse of power, whether conscious or not); debasing the Oval Office, the Presidency individually, and the institute of the Presidency; the perjury; and getting up in front of America and lying

That is the past, though, and just as the Democrats needed to get past Vietnam, the GOP needs to get past Clinton.

By: StockBoySF

StockBoySF — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 04:42:36 +0000

Rambie, I agree with you, the media should be given the opportunity to ask questions, and if they do their job properly those questions will be probing questions. My point is that if Palin is not made available to the press or refuses to answer questions, then the press (rather than ignoring Palin) should state in simple but firm terms that Palin refuses to cooperate.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:46:07 +0000

Chris, no one but conservatives have even gone near the Ayers story.

CS Your comment is an outright lie. Try a Google specific site search for the Chicago papers.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&...
Results 1 - 10 of about 744 from www.chicagotribune.com for ayers obama.
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&...
Results 1 - 10 of about 55 from www.suntimes.com for ayers obama.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:16:38 +0000

George, does that mean my home run doesn't count?

Ricorun : “Damn you guys are fast. Don't you have jobs??? Lol!”

Work full time here, but am often close to a computer. Probably been here more lately than is healthy – but like the rest of you am slightly obsessed with politics.

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 02:39:25 +0000

The comments have gotten out of order on this thread.

By: elrod

elrod — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 02:13:37 +0000

Wow, that was a head-spinning exchange!

I'll just make a point about Jazz's original post: It was ME who first blogged here about Palin going into her cocoon!!!!!!!!!

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:45:43 +0000

Good heavens! You are as partisan as any of us, CStanley.

By: No Interviews Until She’s READY? « Liberty Street

No Interviews Until She’s READY? « Liberty Street — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:45:30 +0000

[...] abysmal ignorance about anything more important than moose hunting and snow machines, that they are sending her back to Alaska post haste: Earlier, I wrote the following: Sarah Palin will eventually show up for such [...]

By: CStanley

CStanley — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:13:37 +0000

I'll admit I was being deliberately provocative, but I do wish people would think these accusations through in a nonpartisan way. I feel that the “Rovian” politics are really just as much due to people buying into these ideas that we can rationalize mudslinging if it's against the other party as it is due to any one particular political operative.

By: Jazz

Jazz — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:04:46 +0000

Ok, we're on to the “sell the plane on e-bay” story now. Let's all scroll up.

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:27:39 +0000

Why have extramarital affairs now become fair game anyway?

CStanley, you might have come back with a concession that you'd said something ridiculous.

Are you really sure you don't want to stop digging?

By: CStanley

CStanley — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:20:20 +0000

So, if I go onto a well read blog and publish unsubstantiated rumors about your private life, Jim, and then later admit that I was wrong, that's all that's required, right?

Just checking.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:20:18 +0000

So, if I go onto a well read blog and publish unsubstantiated rumors about your private life, Jim, and then later admit that I was wrong, that's all that's required, right?

Just checking.

By: Ricorun

Ricorun — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:15:45 +0000

Damn you guys are fast. Don't you have jobs??? Lol!

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:15:36 +0000

Um, no. He refused to apologize for making the original post, but admitted that it was wrong. The admission of inaccuracy is what makes a retraction, not an apology for having written it though some people obviously don't understand the distinction.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:14:28 +0000

George, that's hilarious because you are twisting my words to try to convey the opposite. Here, let me help you out:

Because Republicans don't endorse a Democratic criteria of judgment (in this case, that personal lives shouldn't be relevant in a campaign), only the Democrats should be able to claim that exemption. (per your argument, that is.)

It works both ways is what I'm trying to help you understand. It's hypocritical to say that a set of standards applies to thee but not to me, no matter who sets the standards.

By: Ricorun

Ricorun — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:11:19 +0000

CStanley: Jazz, smoke sometimes leads to fire, but that doesn't mean everytime there's smoke that there should be publication of what amounts to vicious rumors.

I was one of those that tried to explain why the MSM wasn't going after Edwards as aggressively as many thought they should. And the point you bring up was a big part of it -- how does a media outlet know whether the smoldering embers of a story are going to burst into flame or a pile full of snot? I still stand by every word I said in that regard, by the way. It's a very hard question. And many times what outwardly appears to be reticence may actually turn out to be behind the scenes attempts to move the story before going public. Ultimately, that appears to be the case with Edwards -- he finally decided that there was too much "there" there to deny it (at least completely). And once the gun started smoking the media was all over it. The same questions and issues apply here.

Why have extramarital affairs now become fair game anyway?

Oh please.