Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I didn't say anyone should be vetted by the media! I said the PUBLIC. We have vetted Obama for 19 months now. We can look at his voting record for 12 years! We have seen him in interviews, debates, read numerous articles on him, I have read his books, watched TV specials on him, and watched as the media went through his life 500 times. They have scoured his personal records.

What are YOU talking about?

Oh, dear God. Obama has NOT been vetted by the public. The media has tried their hardest to cover up the true Barack Hussein Obama for 19 months now. Real information about this man is finally leaking out now, and THAT is why he is tanking in the polls. He is FINALLY being vetted right now. The MSM tried as hard as they could to protect him, and they hoped the smokescreen would last til November, but it didn't.

We haven't seen Obama in debates. He may as well have been absent in the primary debates because all he did was make smug comments and smirk the whole time with the media giving him favorable camera angles and making Hillary look like Satan's wife. He had nothing to say then and he has nothing to say now, which is why he declined all 10 invitations for town hall meetings with John McCain, even though he originally accepted several of them. Yet another flip-flop by the vacuous Obama.

We have not seen him in ANY interviews where tough questions were asked, like his ties to Bill Ayers, his radical stance on abortion, his supporting of earmarks, his unwillingness to "cross the aisle" on a single issue other than...get this...a cap on Google as if that was a partisan issue It's a joke.

His personal records have not been scoured because he has attorneys protecting them waiting to sue at any moment. Why do you think we can't dig up any info on William Ayers? He just tried to sue to keep an ad about his ties with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers off the air.

He has not been vetted by the public AT ALL. 19 months later and we still don't know who he is.

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticThey have asked Palin 10 times more questions in the past 2 weeks than Obama has been asked in the past 19 months,

That is NOT TRUE! Palin has had ONE interview. ONE.

Funny. In 2 weeks, I've heard of:

Troopergate (a nonstory)

Bristol Palin is pregnant (a nonstory)

Trig Palin is not Sarah's baby (a lie perpetuated by the MSM)

The media demands a DNA test to prove who Trig's mother is (absolutely appalling)

Palin is a book burner (a lie perpetuated by the MSM)

Palin wants only creationism taught in school (another lie, she stated it would be best to teach both intelligent design AND evolution to clear bias)

The Obama campaign sends 30 lawyers to Alaska to try and dig up dirt (i.e. find the 16% of people who don't like Palin in bars and offer them money to cry about how much their life sucks because of her)

This was in the past 2 weeks off the top of my head. I'm sure I missed stuff. It's absolutely PATHETIC, and the interview that she had was possibly the most condescending thing I've ever seen. I hope they keep this crap up. McCain's going to win in a LANDSLIDE.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by ChocoTaco369]

It's classic neo-conservatism. ANY negative news about Sarah Palin, regardless of an avalanche of facts to back them up, are instantly dismissed as being due to the "liberal media." Facts don't matter. How dare the media look into her background.

Conversely, with Obama, unless the media come up with something intensely negative, they just aren't doing their jobs. It doesn't matter to neo-cons that there are people in the media who are trying desperately to find something bad to make a name for themselves. The neocons are absolutely intellectually incapable of entertaining the concept that all of the dirt on Obama has already been dug up. They don't need facts, it's just their "gut feeling." You know, like their "gut feeling" on Iraq.

Originally posted by matttheratt
It's classic neo-conservatism. ANY negative news about Sarah Palin, regardless of an avalanche of facts to back them up, are instantly dismissed as being due to the "liberal media." Facts don't matter. How dare the media look into her background.

Unfortunately for you, there are NO facts to back any of these accusations up. Please, I urge you. Provide us with facts - not hearsay, not blogs, not he-said-she-said's - give us FACTS. Since NO facts have ever been provided, THAT is why it's being blamed on the liberal media. Are you actually going to sit behind the safety of your keyboard and pretend that the media isn't radically liberal? How do you sleep at night when you spend all day in a dreamworld?

Originally posted by matttherattConversely, with Obama, unless the media come up with something intensely negative, they just aren't doing their jobs. It doesn't matter to neo-cons that there are people in the media who are trying desperately to find something bad to make a name for themselves. The neocons are absolutely intellectually incapable of entertaining the concept that all of the dirt on Obama has already been dug up. They don't need facts, it's just their "gut feeling." You know, like their "gut feeling" on Iraq.

Neocon, neocon, neocon. Do you even know what that means? You keep throwing it around. What's the difference between the conservatives of today vs. the conservatives of yesterday? Last time I checked, there is no "new conservatism." You're either conservative or you're not. To try and redefine a word to suit your agenda is contrary to the very definition of the word "conservative." You guys with the labels crack me up.

That being said, the problem is NOTHING is being researched about Obama by the MSM. This is what we know about Obama:

- He has radical stances on abortion
- He spent 20 years in a cult labeled as a church while a racist extremist filled his head with hatemongering nonsense
- He has had a longstanding, friendly relationship with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers
- He is one of the largest supporters of earmarks in Congress
- He has NEVER crossed the aisle on a single issue, ever, in his political career
- He is THE most radically liberal member of Congress
- His running mate is the third most radically liberal member of the Senate
- He has zero executive experience
- He has been wrong on the surge and to this day still won't admit it
- He has voted "present" - i.e. avoided voting - more than he has voted in order to avoid controversial situations
- He has flip-flopped on virtually every stance on issues he has ever taken. EVER.

Where is the MSM with ANY of these questions? They're not asking ANYTHING regarding these topics. Instead, we get stories about "Why He Loves His Wife" while Palin is getting torn to shreds while the MSM demands DNA samples to prove her baby actually came from her womb. Where is the justice here? Where is fairness? WHERE IS JOURNALISM?

2008: the year journalism in America died. RIP.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by ChocoTaco369]

All governors do not appoint members of their high school class to high government positions with big salaries.

True, there is cronyism everywhere in government, but it looks like Palin's in there with the best of them.

True, the NY Times is liberal leaning but that doesn't make it impossible for them to be accurate.

Contrary to many comments posted here, Obama has been subjected to much more scrutiny than Palin has so far, and she will continue to be vetted.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369

Unfortunately for you, there are NO facts to back any of these accusations up. Please, I urge you. Provide us with facts - not hearsay, not blogs, not he-said-she-said's - give us FACTS.

Uh, your response to my post alone backs it up. Reading much of this thread backs it up. Duh.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
Are you actually going to sit behind the safety of your keyboard and pretend that the media isn't radically liberal?

I don't need to pretend. The idea that the media is "radically liberal" is a notion floated by conservatives for people who are stupid enough to believe it.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369

How do you sleep at night when you spend all day in a dreamworld?

Great self-serving analysis. You've nailed it. It can't be reality if it doesn't come to the same outlook as yours.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
Neocon, neocon, neocon. Do you even know what that means? You keep throwing it around. What's the difference between the conservatives of today vs. the conservatives of yesterday? Last time I checked, there is no "new conservatism."

Then maybe you should check more often. There is a group that labeled themselves "neo-conservative" called the "Project for a New American Century." They included Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Pearl, Richard Armitage, Frank Gafney and other very well known neocons. Thier idealogy differs dramatically from traditional conservatives in projecting American military power abroad and many other issues. Not being aware of this is, frankly, quite surprising for someone who considers himself a conservative.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
You're either conservative or you're not. To try and redefine a word to suit your agenda is contrary to the very definition of the word "conservative." You guys with the labels crack me up.

I'm not re-defining the word. The neo-cons defined themselves

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
That being said, the problem is NOTHING is being researched about Obama by the MSM. This is what we know about Obama:

- He has radical stances on abortion
- He spent 20 years in a cult labeled as a church while a racist extremist filled his head with hatemongering nonsense
- He has had a longstanding, friendly relationship with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers
- He is one of the largest supporters of earmarks in Congress
- He has NEVER crossed the aisle on a single issue, ever, in his political career
- He is THE most radically liberal member of Congress
- His running mate is the third most radically liberal member of the Senate
- He has zero executive experience
- He has been wrong on the surge and to this day still won't admit it
- He has voted "present" - i.e. avoided voting - more than he has voted in order to avoid controversial situations
- He has flip-flopped on virtually every stance on issues he has ever taken. EVER.

The only reason you know about those things is because of the MSM. This is all old news and totally subjective. Snicker and a yawn.



[edit on 14-9-2008 by matttheratt]

[edit on 14-9-2008 by matttheratt]

reply to post by vor78
The bit in the NY Times piece about John Bitney is not focused on John Bitney. It is focused on Todd Palin, Sarah Palin's husband, and shows that Mr. Palin has in the past sought to influence decisions made about official state business.

Last summer State Representative John Harris, the Republican speaker of the House, picked up his phone and heard Mr. Palin’s voice. The governor’s husband sounded edgy. He said he was unhappy that Mr. Harris had hired John Bitney as his chief of staff, the speaker recalled. Mr. Bitney was a high school classmate of the Palins and had worked for Ms. Palin. But she fired Mr. Bitney after learning that he had fallen in love with another longtime friend.

“I understood from the call that Todd wasn’t happy with me hiring John and he’d like to see him not there,” Mr. Harris said.

“The Palin family gets upset at personal issues,” he added. “And at our level, they want to strike back.”

Through a campaign spokesman, Mr. Palin said he “did not recall” referring to Mr. Bitney in the conversation.

There is no conflict between what was reported in the NY Times and what the Washington Post reported. The Washington Post article that you cited is a report about John Bitney being fired from his position as Gov. Palin's legislative director. Mr. Bitney then was subsequently hired by State Representative and Republican Speaker of the House, John Harris as Harris' chief of staff.

I think it is important to know that Todd Palin, who is not an employee of the state of Alaska in any capacity, has a penchant for meddling in official matters of the state of Alaska. John Bitney was fired once by Sarah Palin herself. Though there is controversy surrounding Bitney's firing, if the firing were appropriate, shouldn't that have been enough? What is the reason that Mr. Palin would then call John Harris to express displeasure about Mr. Bitney working for John Harris? Does Mr. Palin's behavior not strike you as being odd and/or obsessive?

Todd Palin has been subpoenaed by Alaska lawmakers in an investigation involving the employment of Alaska’s public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan and state trooper, former Mike and Sarah Palin brother-in-law, Mike Wooten. Where might Mr. Palin get the confidence and motivation to try and influence the employment status of state employees?

To me, this passage involving Mr. Palin, Mr. Harris, and Mr. Bitney is one of the more compelling and credible reports in the Times' article. It should be crystal clear that it is not biased along partisan lines.

Originally posted by matttheratt
Uh, your response to my post alone backs it up. Reading much of this thread backs it up. Duh.

This perhaps sets the record for the dumbest thing I've ever read on ATS. MY RESPONSE proves there are facts? I asked you to provide facts, and you provided NOTHING. NOTHING. Because THERE ARE NO FACTS. If there were facts, you'd be able to provide them. The only thing this proves is that you have failed to deliver. This only proves you're a liar.

Originally posted by matttheratt
I don't need to pretend. The idea that the media is "radically liberal" is a notion floated by conservatives for people who are stupid enough to believe it.

Practically every survey I've ever read shows the media has a HORRIBLE liberal bias. There are MASSIVE archives all over the internet PROVING THIS.

www.mrc.org...

Just read the reports! Dozens of independent studies have been conducted and they ALL show the same things. I don't expect you to read the report because the facts contradict the "reality" of your dreamworld, but for anyone that's actually willing to get educated, I urge you to check out the PDF I just posted.

Originally posted by matttheratt
Great self-serving analysis. You've nailed it. It can't be reality if it doesn't come to the same outlook as yours.

You claim to have facts, yet you have none. The reality here is that you're a liar. It has nothing to do with my personal preferences.

Originally posted by matttherattThen maybe you should check more often. There is a group that labeled themselves "neo-conservative" called the "Project for a New American Century." They included Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Pearl, Richard Armitage, Frank Gafney and other very well known neocons. Thier idealogy differs dramatically from traditional conservatives in projecting American military power abroad and many other issues. Not being aware of this is, frankly, quite surprising for someone who considers himself a conservative.

And you're labeling Palin as one. Palin has nothing to do with this. Palin is an actual conservative. You're lumping people in groups they don't belong in. Palin is a conservative individual. Nothing more. You need to understand this (along with many, many, many other things).

Originally posted by matttheratt
I'm not re-defining the word. The neo-cons defined themselves

If you're trying to lump Sarah Palin, a true conservative, into the same category as Dick Cheney, you have to do A LOT of redefining.

Originally posted by matttheratt
The only reason you know about those things is because of the MSM. This is all old news and totally subjective. Snicker and a yawn.

Crash and burn! WRONG!

The only reason why these stories have been broken are because of alternative media outlets. This is information that's constantly brought to people's attention through personalities like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity - you know, your typical enemies - through sources like The American Thinker, Politico, The National Journal and many others. This is NOT information that's been discovered by NBC/MSNBC, ABC, CBS, the NY Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc. Those are the ones complacent in covering up this information.

Wake up, man. The only thing liberal you need is a liberal dose of reality.

reply to post by ChocoTaco369
With all due respect, you're not asking for facts that are related to this thread. There are plenty facts like them or not, that are presented in the article of the OP. I'm sure that if you wanted to, you could list them all.

Just sayin.

If this is the worst they can dig up she is a big winner , Nothing in that article will have a chance to change a vote , Palin is a winner in every category , The left is smearing as they are losing more ground and The Republicans are the first to have a women this close

I will likely get burnt for this..but after watching some of her interviews and looking at her photos,i get the feeling that she is mentally unstable.

For some reason Palin gives me a very bad feeling.
I dont trust her..as iv said in other post's what happens in America affects all of us.

Does anyone feel the same?

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369

This perhaps sets the record for the dumbest thing I've ever read on ATS. MY RESPONSE proves there are facts? I asked you to provide facts, and you provided NOTHING. NOTHING. Because THERE ARE NO FACTS. If there were facts, you'd be able to provide them. The only thing this proves is that you have failed to deliver. This only proves you're a liar.

Evidently, you're not fond of reading. I said:

"ANY negative news about Sarah Palin, regardless of an avalanche of facts to back them up, are instantly dismissed as being due to the "liberal media." Facts don't matter. How dare the media look into her background."

As far as the 'facts," why not read the article??

Oh, wait. That would require reading. Sorry.

Oh, and check this out.

I guess the "liberal media" is just making this stuff up.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
I don't need to pretend. The idea that the media is "radically liberal" is a notion floated by conservatives for people who are stupid enough to believe it.

There are MASSIVE archives all over the internet PROVING THIS.

www.mrc.org...


Your link didn't work. And I would have shrugged my shoulders anyway. I don't doubt that someone can provide a self-serving biased "study" that the media have some sort of bias against them. This is nothing more than a childish persecution complex.

There are plenty of links that say just the opposite, like this

and this

and this

and this

I don't doubt it's not difficult to find sources that claim there's a "liberal bias" in the media. It's not difficult to find sources that claim there's a "conservative bias" either. This means nothing.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
Just read the reports! Dozens of independent studies have been conducted and they ALL show the same things. I don't expect you to read the report because the facts contradict the "reality" of your dreamworld, but for anyone that's actually willing to get educated, I urge you to check out the PDF I just posted.

Yeah? Dozens, eh? Oh, and I'm sure you're willing to "educate" me. That's funny!

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369

Originally posted by matttheratt
Great self-serving analysis. You've nailed it. It can't be reality if it doesn't come to the same outlook as yours.

You claim to have facts, yet you have none. The reality here is that you're a liar. It has nothing to do with my personal preferences.

I say again, "It can't be reality if it doesn't come to the same outlook as yours." Please tell me exactly what I've "lied" about in my OP. Look at how you, and all the conservatives here are getting upset that the media is reporting anything at all negative about Sarah Palin. You practically want the media to give Obama a colinoscopy, desperately want to hear anything negative, but then are outraged when the media simply point out things that are matter of public record about Sarah Palin. You want a double-standard, plain and simple. That was what my post said. That was what your hysterical response proved.

Oh, and I see you've become upset that I defined exactly what I meany by "neo-con." Sorry. Didn't mean to ruin your day.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by matttheratt]

reply to post by SvenTheBerserK


Anyone who gets into power has to be unstable, just to get there, you need to be a b*tch or b*stard. I am not sure what term, you would use for people who get into these positions, but i doubt it is of a stable mind. Everyone of them, love the power it gives them, and none of them show any responsibility, at all to there fellow man.

Sarah Palin is a wannabe and is learning to fit in well with her cohorts. She has extensive training in cronyism and vindictiveness, as evidenced by the NYT piece. I hope that the American voters now realize, after two interminable terms of Cowboy George, that the GOP does nothing for the common citizen. It panders to big oil, those that don't know how many houses they own, and those that make more than $5 million per year. The greedy idiots who run the big banks must now be bailed out by the same Government that they claim is not good enough to control their avarice. Power projection is a failed Bush concept as can be seen by a useless war that is taking the lives of our best. Perhaps a draft that would have sent Jenna to Iraq would have tempered the tantrum-prone bullies that run the country.

If power-hungry Sarah becomes VP, the American public will soon realize its mistake when she shows her stuff on the national stage.

When Bill Clinton took office, he fired many attorneys and other officials.
Also, he fired all the experienced travel office people, and let his friends, who owned a travel agency, take over. Before he left office, he pardoned many people. Among them were five Puerto Ricans who had tried to do a bombing. This - to get the Hispanic vote for Hillary when she ran for senator. They also took off with thousands of dollars worth of furniture, etc.which they were obliged to return. Prove what you say about Sarah Palin.

reply to post by JEANNIEMAC


Is is really that hard to just read the article?

reply to post by mabus325


I don't know. I've been thinking about this article in the context in which you mentioned, and I have to say, the article was pretty scathing. Five pages of scathing.

Maybe you're right, time will tell. I like the way your thinking beyond the obvious, for sure.

Do you think we'll see an article like this about Baraq Obamessiah and Penny Pritzker in the NYTIMES?

Probably not, or have I just not seen it yet?

Thanks for the thread,

Thuth

Snip






Mod Edit: Please see Terms and Conditions of Use section 4) Advertising. Thank you - Jak

[edit on 16/9/08 by JAK]

reply to post by AllSeeingI


Why trust a newspaper from New York, why not research thru Alaskan newspapers. The hype you see on those pages are from committed far left zealots, Independents as myself know a much different story. Please do some justice to the readers of your post and give them good information to base thier decisions on. thank you

As an outside observer and facing a federal election ourselves. Thank God ours is only 6 weeks. I couldn't take seeing election crap for 3 frickin years. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors on both sides. Although the Republicans seem to think if they say the same thing in public enough times then people will start to believe it. It seems to be working because when outright lies are told over and over again and are proven to be false(the whole I told congress to take the bridge to nowhere, yada yada yada). Obama has his demons.

It's as simple as this, you want more of the last 8 years and possibly a war with Russia(As Palin hasn't ruled out as an option). Then vote for Replubican, Obama if elected will probably screw up on some things but at least he seems to be heading in the right direction. The US needs a major make-over. Your going bankrupt if not already there. Your starting wars all over the world and rattling the saber with Russia which is a huge mistake because it will screw Europes energy security. You can't bail them out without total destruction of Europe and I think 2 World Wars is enough for them. So they will distance themselves from you and that will screw us in Canada.

We don't want anymore wars. We're sick of losing in Afghanistan when we're helping you out. Your gov't can't provide the proper backup and are building the insurgency by crossing into Pakistan and they are killing our brave and fearless soldiers at an ever increasing rate. Canadians will at some point say our soldiers are worth more than this mess and you can clean it up yourselves.

This is the frustration the rest of the world is feeling because your reckless foreign policy over the last 40 years is what got us into this mess. You have to abandon the war machine. Its not doing you any good. It's making you less safe than more safe.

That is why people of America, your vote this November is so critical. Your country is in a lot of trouble and it's happened over the last 8 years especially. If you want to hit rock bottom and see how far the rabbit hole goes then vote for the party that's going to give you more of the same. Or vote for the party that's at least trying to head in the right direction. That even if he fails it might start a critical mass of real change as attitudes are changed and a new reality can be realized.

Your vote is also so critical because whoever gets into office affects how the rest of us live our lives too. Your not the only ones feeling pain.

See through the smoke and mirrors and soundbites. Research both sides of a story even if you think it's BS. It never hurts to have a broad view when making an important decision.

After reading all of the comments, all I have to say is:

Am I the only one who thinks that it was extremely convenient to have her "come out" when there are less than six weeks to scrutinize her, her qualifications and, more importantly, her points of view?

So far she has done as much as anyone in the "liberal" press to sound as an extremist, with dangerous tinges of moral sufficiency and self-righteous rhetorics. To have someone speak with her lack of formation and savoir faire in international politics is down right scary. Suffice it to say that the european press is merciless in treating her "lapses".

She was shamelessly chosen for being a woman, and one that can sway masses, while we're at it. It doesn't matter how or even why, but it seems that the political weight of controversy and extremism is now deemed as the virtue of having "deeply rooted" values and convictions, even if they're wrong.

I hope they dig more, way more on her. We need to know.