Part Three: Still More Revelations About Sarah Palin’s Incredible Lightness of Being
In Part One, we learned that Sarah Palin has taken stands opposite John McCain on open government and sex ed, feuds with members of her extended family, lies about little things as well as big things, has never expressed a conviction on a major issue, attends a church where some pretty weird stuff gets preached, as a true-blue Christianist effortlessly mixes religion and politics, and that there is a concerted effort by the McCain campaign to quash an investigation in which she is accused of firing a political enemy.
In Part Two, we learned that Palin billed taxpayers for her kids’ meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business and her hubby also browsed at this trough, she went to extraordinary lengths to hide her most recent pregnancy, played hardball proxy politics from the start, like the Bush administration won’t release a bunch of e-mails, is a lot savvier with the media than anyone is letting on, has a tenuous grasp of the economy, and has now struck out in trying to quash that investigation.
And so to Part Three:
With Palin bigfooting across the political landscape, a cry can be heard in the land: “Where’s Hillary?” The answer: Doing what she should be doing.
Speaking of which, can Palin be called a feminist?
Speaking of which, is it sexist to talk about Palin’s family?
Palin boasts of her hunting background and presumably can tell a moose from a deer. But she has trouble acknowledging that John McCain runs with a certain herd himself.
Apropos of Palin the Mighty Huntress: Which animals would Jesus pay you to shoot from airplanes? And for how much?
Memo to Barry: Stop running against Palin. She ain’t worth the effort.
Memo to Johnnie: Palin is not the commander of the Alaska National Guard.
While there are questions about her promotion of the guy who is the commander.
Palin is not just governor of Alaska. She is a de facto member of OPEC.
While the list of books that Palin allegedly wanted banned from the Wasilla public library turned out to be bogus, as is a rumor that she wanted to throw Eskimos on piles of burning books, the library story refuses to die because of the McCain campaign’s beyond lame explanation.
Then there’s this.
Is Palin populating your dreams these days? Seems to be happening to an awful lot of folks.
Evangelical wingnuttery in the name of The Big Guy is nothing new. But now we have evangelicals demanding that McCain embrace Palin’s beliefs.
Palin herself has embraced the Reversible Raincoat.
Early concerns that Palin would screw up if she went out on her own have now been replaced by concerns that McCain is afraid to let go of her.
Records were meant to be broken, right? Well, McCain and Palin are on course to outdo George Bush.
Speaking of forked tongues, is the GOP playing down Palin’s religious beliefs?
Now coming to a political rally near you: The Sarah Palin doll. Pull the doll’s string and it says four things. And only four things.
Also on offer: The Sarah Palin action figure collection (small photo above).
While there has been a dearth of jokes about Palin not knowing when to shut her mouth (for obvious reasons), a judge in Alaska warned her to stop bad-mouthing her former brother-in-law.
Finally, with Palin scheduled to sit down with ABC News‘s Charles Gibson, today’s may be the final edition of the Cone of Silence Watch.
But if Charlie Boy lobs softballs at Palin, then . . . the Watch will continue.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
132 Responses to “Part Three: Still More Revelations About Sarah Palin’s Incredible Lightness of Being”
jwest, let's start here:
She has stated that terminating the project amounted to telling Congress “thanks, but no thanks.” This suggests that Congress was attempting to force the project on Alaska, when in fact it had given the state discretion. Her decision should instead be viewed as conveying the message “thanks, but no thanks” to Alaska’s Republican Congressional delegation.
First of all, it is well documented that she lobbied hard for the bridge (among other things). The person who backed the earmark was Ted Stevens, who quietly popped it in there in a backroom deal (which was often how things were done), so it's a little disingenuous to say congress was trying to “force” the project on Alaska. Once the earmark was revealed Stevens took a lot of flak for it, and he threw a hissy fit. Remember that? But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why. And Palin didn't return money. She kept it. Now, imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked. Alaska would have been the laughingstock of the nation.
The email claims: “To justify her decision, she argued that the bridge project had become too expensive, and that the state should investigate more cost-effective alternatives. In political terms, her decision was viewed as a blow to the state’s Republican establishment, which had strongly championed the project.” As far as I can tell, that's just one man's interpretation. It's obvious to most other people that the bridge idea was dead. To be honest, I don't know if the “Republican establishment” was crazy enough to continue to push it after Steven's hissy fit, but the fact remains that until that time Palin was right there with them — and Stevens.
It's certainly true that the number of earmarks going to Alaska is down the last couple of years. But that's true pretty much across the board. Moreover, as a result of the bridge to nowhere incident, Ted Stevens and Don Young were revealed as two of the most eggregious earmark kings in congress. Both of them also started having major legal problems. That left only Lisa Murkowski in Alaska's congressional delegation. And she's a rookie. She's also the daughter of the corrupt former governor who Palin beat in the gubernatorial primary. So I'd say it's pretty obvious why the number of earmarks dedicated to Alaska has decreased.
jwest, let's start here:
She has stated that terminating the project amounted to telling Congress “thanks, but no thanks.” This suggests that Congress was attempting to force the project on Alaska, when in fact it had given the state discretion. Her decision should instead be viewed as conveying the message “thanks, but no thanks” to Alaska’s Republican Congressional delegation.
First of all, it is well documented that she lobbied hard for the bridge (among other things). The person who backed the earmark was Ted Stevens, who quietly popped it in there in a backroom deal (which was often how things were done), so it's a little disingenuous to say congress was trying to “force” the project on Alaska. Once the earmark was revealed Stevens took a lot of flak for it, and he threw a hissy fit. Remember that? But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why. And Palin didn't return money. She kept it. Now, imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked. Alaska would have been the laughingstock of the nation.
The email claims: “To justify her decision, she argued that the bridge project had become too expensive, and that the state should investigate more cost-effective alternatives. In political terms, her decision was viewed as a blow to the state’s Republican establishment, which had strongly championed the project.” As far as I can tell, that's just one man's interpretation. It's obvious to most other people that the bridge idea was dead. To be honest, I don't know if the “Republican establishment” was crazy enough to continue to push it after Steven's hissy fit, but the fact remains that until that time Palin was right there with them — and Stevens.
It's certainly true that the number of earmarks going to Alaska is down the last couple of years. But that's true pretty much across the board. Moreover, as a result of the bridge to nowhere incident, Ted Stevens and Don Young were revealed as two of the most eggregious earmark kings in congress. Both of them also started having major legal problems. That left only Lisa Murkowski in Alaska's congressional delegation. And she's a rookie. She's also the daughter of the corrupt former governor who Palin beat in the gubernatorial primary. So I'd say it's pretty obvious why the number of earmarks dedicated to Alaska has decreased.
jwest, let's start here:
She has stated that terminating the project amounted to telling Congress “thanks, but no thanks.” This suggests that Congress was attempting to force the project on Alaska, when in fact it had given the state discretion. Her decision should instead be viewed as conveying the message “thanks, but no thanks” to Alaska’s Republican Congressional delegation.
First of all, it is well documented that she lobbied hard for the bridge (among other things). The person who backed the earmark was Ted Stevens, who quietly popped it in there in a backroom deal (which was often how things were done), so it's a little disingenuous to say congress was trying to “force” the project on Alaska. Once the earmark was revealed Stevens took a lot of flak for it, and he threw a hissy fit. Remember that? But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why. And Palin didn't return money. She kept it. Now, imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked. Alaska would have been the laughingstock of the nation.
The email claims: “To justify her decision, she argued that the bridge project had become too expensive, and that the state should investigate more cost-effective alternatives. In political terms, her decision was viewed as a blow to the state’s Republican establishment, which had strongly championed the project.” As far as I can tell, that's just one man's interpretation. It's obvious to most other people that the bridge idea was dead. To be honest, I don't know if the “Republican establishment” was crazy enough to continue to push it after Steven's hissy fit, but the fact remains that until that time Palin was right there with them — and Stevens.
It's certainly true that the number of earmarks going to Alaska is down the last couple of years. But that's true pretty much across the board. Moreover, as a result of the bridge to nowhere incident, Ted Stevens and Don Young were revealed as two of the most eggregious earmark kings in congress. Both of them also started having major legal problems. That left only Lisa Murkowski in Alaska's congressional delegation. And she's a rookie. She's also the daughter of the corrupt former governor who Palin beat in the gubernatorial primary. So I'd say it's pretty obvious why the number of earmarks dedicated to Alaska has decreased.
jwest, let's start here:
She has stated that terminating the project amounted to telling Congress “thanks, but no thanks.” This suggests that Congress was attempting to force the project on Alaska, when in fact it had given the state discretion. Her decision should instead be viewed as conveying the message “thanks, but no thanks” to Alaska’s Republican Congressional delegation.
First of all, it is well documented that she lobbied hard for the bridge (among other things). The person who backed the earmark was Ted Stevens, who quietly popped it in there in a backroom deal (which was often how things were done), so it's a little disingenuous to say congress was trying to “force” the project on Alaska. Once the earmark was revealed Stevens took a lot of flak for it, and he threw a hissy fit. Remember that? But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why. And Palin didn't return money. She kept it. Now, imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked. Alaska would have been the laughingstock of the nation.
The email claims: “To justify her decision, she argued that the bridge project had become too expensive, and that the state should investigate more cost-effective alternatives. In political terms, her decision was viewed as a blow to the state’s Republican establishment, which had strongly championed the project.” As far as I can tell, that's just one man's interpretation. It's obvious to most other people that the bridge idea was dead. To be honest, I don't know if the “Republican establishment” was crazy enough to continue to push it after Steven's hissy fit, but the fact remains that until that time Palin was right there with them — and Stevens.
It's certainly true that the number of earmarks going to Alaska is down the last couple of years. But that's true pretty much across the board. Moreover, as a result of the bridge to nowhere incident, Ted Stevens and Don Young were revealed as two of the most eggregious earmark kings in congress. Both of them also started having major legal problems. That left only Lisa Murkowski in Alaska's congressional delegation. And she's a rookie. She's also the daughter of the corrupt former governor who Palin beat in the gubernatorial primary. So I'd say it's pretty obvious why the number of earmarks dedicated to Alaska has decreased.
JW says: From UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, via email:
,,,
The professor doesn't include any links to his assertions. Both Reason and AmCon call Palin out on lies and spin on the BTNW.
JW says: From UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, via email:
,,,
The professor doesn't include any links to his assertions. Both Reason and AmCon call Palin out on lies and spin on the BTNW.
JW says: From UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, via email:
,,,
The professor doesn't include any links to his assertions. Both Reason and AmCon call Palin out on lies and spin on the BTNW.
JW says: From UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, via email:
,,,
The professor doesn't include any links to his assertions. Both Reason and AmCon call Palin out on lies and spin on the BTNW.
JW says: From UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, via email:
,,,
The professor doesn't include any links to his assertions. Both Reason and AmCon call Palin out on lies and spin on the BTNW.
JW says: From UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, via email:
,,,
The professor doesn't include any links to his assertions. Both Reason and AmCon call Palin out on lies and spin on the BTNW.
JW says: From UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, via email:
,,,
The professor doesn't include any links to his assertions. Both Reason and AmCon call Palin out on lies and spin on the BTNW.
JW says: From UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, via email:
,,,
The professor doesn't include any links to his assertions. Both Reason and AmCon call Palin out on lies and spin on the BTNW.
JW says: From UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, via email:
,,,
The professor doesn't include any links to his assertions. Both Reason and AmCon call Palin out on lies and spin on the BTNW.
Ricorun,
So, what you are saying is that the article I posted presents the facts.
If you were to be judged on accuracy and rationality by an impartial jury, would you rather present the information in the article, or Shaun’s rantings?
Of course, you can take what was written and make your own interpretations as to what was said and implied, but isn’t it nice to know the basics of the situation without all the craziness?
Ricorun,
So, what you are saying is that the article I posted presents the facts.
If you were to be judged on accuracy and rationality by an impartial jury, would you rather present the information in the article, or Shaun’s rantings?
Of course, you can take what was written and make your own interpretations as to what was said and implied, but isn’t it nice to know the basics of the situation without all the craziness?
Ricorun,
So, what you are saying is that the article I posted presents the facts.
If you were to be judged on accuracy and rationality by an impartial jury, would you rather present the information in the article, or Shaun’s rantings?
Of course, you can take what was written and make your own interpretations as to what was said and implied, but isn’t it nice to know the basics of the situation without all the craziness?
Ricorun,
So, what you are saying is that the article I posted presents the facts.
If you were to be judged on accuracy and rationality by an impartial jury, would you rather present the information in the article, or Shaun’s rantings?
Of course, you can take what was written and make your own interpretations as to what was said and implied, but isn’t it nice to know the basics of the situation without all the craziness?
Ricorun,
So, what you are saying is that the article I posted presents the facts.
If you were to be judged on accuracy and rationality by an impartial jury, would you rather present the information in the article, or Shaun’s rantings?
Of course, you can take what was written and make your own interpretations as to what was said and implied, but isn’t it nice to know the basics of the situation without all the craziness?
Ricorun,
So, what you are saying is that the article I posted presents the facts.
If you were to be judged on accuracy and rationality by an impartial jury, would you rather present the information in the article, or Shaun’s rantings?
Of course, you can take what was written and make your own interpretations as to what was said and implied, but isn’t it nice to know the basics of the situation without all the craziness?
Ricorun,
So, what you are saying is that the article I posted presents the facts.
If you were to be judged on accuracy and rationality by an impartial jury, would you rather present the information in the article, or Shaun’s rantings?
Of course, you can take what was written and make your own interpretations as to what was said and implied, but isn’t it nice to know the basics of the situation without all the craziness?
Ricorun,
So, what you are saying is that the article I posted presents the facts.
If you were to be judged on accuracy and rationality by an impartial jury, would you rather present the information in the article, or Shaun’s rantings?
Of course, you can take what was written and make your own interpretations as to what was said and implied, but isn’t it nice to know the basics of the situation without all the craziness?
Ricorun,
So, what you are saying is that the article I posted presents the facts.
If you were to be judged on accuracy and rationality by an impartial jury, would you rather present the information in the article, or Shaun’s rantings?
Of course, you can take what was written and make your own interpretations as to what was said and implied, but isn’t it nice to know the basics of the situation without all the craziness?
Ricorun,
So, what you are saying is that the article I posted presents the facts.
If you were to be judged on accuracy and rationality by an impartial jury, would you rather present the information in the article, or Shaun’s rantings?
Of course, you can take what was written and make your own interpretations as to what was said and implied, but isn’t it nice to know the basics of the situation without all the craziness?
It's not strange, Marlowecan. It's an unconscious admission of Palin's widespread appeal and admission that McCain made a choice that has benefited his quest for the Presidency. The negative reaction has strong feelings driving it. Angst! Bad karma! (and it gets much, much uglier from there)
It's not strange, Marlowecan. It's an unconscious admission of Palin's widespread appeal and admission that McCain made a choice that has benefited his quest for the Presidency. The negative reaction has strong feelings driving it. Angst! Bad karma! (and it gets much, much uglier from there)
It's not strange, Marlowecan. It's an unconscious admission of Palin's widespread appeal and admission that McCain made a choice that has benefited his quest for the Presidency. The negative reaction has strong feelings driving it. Angst! Bad karma! (and it gets much, much uglier from there)
It's not strange, Marlowecan. It's an unconscious admission of Palin's widespread appeal and admission that McCain made a choice that has benefited his quest for the Presidency. The negative reaction has strong feelings driving it. Angst! Bad karma! (and it gets much, much uglier from there)
It's not strange, Marlowecan. It's an unconscious admission of Palin's widespread appeal and admission that McCain made a choice that has benefited his quest for the Presidency. The negative reaction has strong feelings driving it. Angst! Bad karma! (and it gets much, much uglier from there)
It's not strange, Marlowecan. It's an unconscious admission of Palin's widespread appeal and admission that McCain made a choice that has benefited his quest for the Presidency. The negative reaction has strong feelings driving it. Angst! Bad karma! (and it gets much, much uglier from there)
It's not strange, Marlowecan. It's an unconscious admission of Palin's widespread appeal and admission that McCain made a choice that has benefited his quest for the Presidency. The negative reaction has strong feelings driving it. Angst! Bad karma! (and it gets much, much uglier from there)
It's not strange, Marlowecan. It's an unconscious admission of Palin's widespread appeal and admission that McCain made a choice that has benefited his quest for the Presidency. The negative reaction has strong feelings driving it. Angst! Bad karma! (and it gets much, much uglier from there)
It's not strange, Marlowecan. It's an unconscious admission of Palin's widespread appeal and admission that McCain made a choice that has benefited his quest for the Presidency. The negative reaction has strong feelings driving it. Angst! Bad karma! (and it gets much, much uglier from there)
It's not strange, Marlowecan. It's an unconscious admission of Palin's widespread appeal and admission that McCain made a choice that has benefited his quest for the Presidency. The negative reaction has strong feelings driving it. Angst! Bad karma! (and it gets much, much uglier from there)
It's not strange, Marlowecan. It's an unconscious admission of Palin's widespread appeal and admission that McCain made a choice that has benefited his quest for the Presidency. The negative reaction has strong feelings driving it. Angst! Bad karma! (and it gets much, much uglier from there)
“But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why.”
It was allocated because congress didn't have the spine to kill it:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109…
If it would have been killed, then we wouldn't have to “imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked”.
“But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why.”
It was allocated because congress didn't have the spine to kill it:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109…
If it would have been killed, then we wouldn't have to “imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked”.
“But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why.”
It was allocated because congress didn't have the spine to kill it:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109…
If it would have been killed, then we wouldn't have to “imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked”.
“But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why.”
It was allocated because congress didn't have the spine to kill it:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109…
If it would have been killed, then we wouldn't have to “imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked”.
“But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why.”
It was allocated because congress didn't have the spine to kill it:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109…
If it would have been killed, then we wouldn't have to “imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked”.
“But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why.”
It was allocated because congress didn't have the spine to kill it:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109…
If it would have been killed, then we wouldn't have to “imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked”.
“But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why.”
It was allocated because congress didn't have the spine to kill it:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109…
If it would have been killed, then we wouldn't have to “imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked”.
“But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why.”
It was allocated because congress didn't have the spine to kill it:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109…
If it would have been killed, then we wouldn't have to “imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked”.
“But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why.”
It was allocated because congress didn't have the spine to kill it:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109…
If it would have been killed, then we wouldn't have to “imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked”.
“But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why.”
It was allocated because congress didn't have the spine to kill it:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109…
If it would have been killed, then we wouldn't have to “imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked”.
“But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why.”
It was allocated because congress didn't have the spine to kill it:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109…
If it would have been killed, then we wouldn't have to “imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked”.
Addtionally, Marlowecan, Obama is lighter than Palin could ever honestly be said to be.
Addtionally, Marlowecan, Obama is lighter than Palin could ever honestly be said to be.
Addtionally, Marlowecan, Obama is lighter than Palin could ever honestly be said to be.
Addtionally, Marlowecan, Obama is lighter than Palin could ever honestly be said to be.
Addtionally, Marlowecan, Obama is lighter than Palin could ever honestly be said to be.