Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Smearing Palin, part ...
On the thoroughly-debunked lefty smear -- still being pushed by the New York Times -- that on Sarah Palin's watch the town of Wasilla charged victims for rape kits used to examine them:
It looks like the Sarah Palin rape-kit myth is still alive and flourishing. . . . But the fact remains that this is a nasty and untrue rumor about Sarah Palin that's been circulating for weeks. If you're an Obama supporter who gets frustrated that people still believe he's Muslim or won't put his hand on his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance, you should understand the frustration that Palin supporters feel when this slime is taken at face value.
The difference, of course, is that all those rumors about Barack Obama did not find their way on to the pages of the New York Times.
20 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Oct 01, 08:13:00 AM:
In support of Palin's position on charging for rape kits, the Slate article links to a USA article which states:
Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella told USA Today in an e-mail that the governor ‘does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.'
"In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," then-chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, the local newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."
Fannon told the Frontiersman that the tests would cost the department up to $14,000 per year. He said he would rather force rapists to pay for the tests, not taxpayers. It is not known how many rape victims in Wasilla were required to pay for some or all of the medical exams, but a legislative staffer who worked on the bill for Croft said it happened. "It was more than a couple of cases, and it was standard practice in Wasilla," Peggy Wilcox said, who now works for the Alaska Public Employees Association. "If you were raped in Wasilla, this was going to happen to you."
What am I missing?
By , at
Wed Oct 01, 09:00:00 AM:
Good grief. Are you still "pushing" Palin?
Kathleen Parker at the National Review summed it up nucely:
"If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.
Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted."
Mine too. Anyone who says she is qualified to be vice-president, and a *heartbeat* away from the Oval Office, has already hit the mute button.
By , at
Wed Oct 01, 11:40:00 AM:
Liberals blabber at lot about tolerence but they sure dont practice it
By , at
Wed Oct 01, 12:20:00 PM:
Liberals blabber at lot about tolerence but they sure dont practice it
LOL. Kathleen Parker is hardly a liberal. Ditto George Will, David Frum, Rich Lowry and David Brooks (to name a few) who have "blabbered" about the lack of Palin's qualifications to be Mccain's running mate.
By , at
Wed Oct 01, 12:28:00 PM:
Palin is light on experience. However, what I don't get is how all of those expressing horror at her being a "heartbeat away" from the Presidency seem unconcerned about Obama's equally, or greater, lack of experience. Is this a double standard or, just politics as usual?
By 
TigerHawk, at
Wed Oct 01, 02:49:00 PM:
Nobody thinks that Sarah Palin is "experienced" in any way that really matters. My longstanding point is a bit different -- that she is definitely more experienced than John Edwards was in 2004, and nobody fretted about these issues. They are now for two reasons. First, she is a woman, so to many people she does not "seem" like a president. Second, they are hoping to blunt attacks on Barack Obama's lack of experience.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Oct 01, 03:01:00 PM:
First Anonymous dude: "What am I missing?"
The unsupported assertion of public union official Peggy Wilcox is not evidence of anything except an opinion, at least as quoted in the USA Today piece. Jim Geraghty deconstructs it here.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Oct 01, 05:19:00 PM:
First Anon: "What am I missing?"
Your brain? Your heart? Your courage? Regardless of the answer, you better stay on the Yellow Brick Road. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain when you reach Oz. That's just Barack Obama pretending he's a wizard.
By , at
Wed Oct 01, 07:42:00 PM:
Who needs the NYT, when Palin is burying herself.
Asked which SCOTUS decisions, other that Roe, she disagreed with Palin responded as follows:
"PALIN: Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but--"
COURIC: Can you think of any?
PALIN: Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Oct 01, 08:47:00 PM:
You should study the Bush-Dukakis race of 1988, Anonymous @ 7:42 p.m. Lloyd Bentsen blew Dan Quayle apart in the VP debate. Quayle won.
Since 1956, Democrats said Eisenhower was stupid, Goldwater was stupid, Ford was stupid, Reagan was stupid (2 elections), Qualye was stupid (2 elections), Dubya was stupid (2 elections). Now Palin supposedly is stupid. (Although Democrats like to call themselves "progressive," they seldom come up with new ideas in campaigns.)
Through 2004, Democrats won 3 out of 9 Presidential elections using that tactic. That's the bottom line.
By , at
Wed Oct 01, 09:24:00 PM:
Qualye was stupid (2 elections), Dubya was stupid (2 elections). Now Palin supposedly is stupid. (Although Democrats like to call themselves "progressive," they seldom come up with new ideas in campaigns)
Heh. Based on that list of candidates, why should we?
You might want to dust off your memory cards, DEC. Qualye was elected VPOTUS but he hardly won the "Your no Jack Kennedy" debate. He was the laughing stock of cartoons, commentary and spelling bees.
Oh, and yes, Qualye was stupid in 2elections even if he was elected only once as VP. Oops.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Oct 01, 09:24:00 PM:
P.S. Democrats didn't claim Nixon and Dole were stupid, so I didn't include those four elections (1960, 1968, 1972, 1996) in the numbers.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Oct 01, 09:29:00 PM:
"Qualye was elected VPOTUS but he hardly won the 'Your no Jack Kennedy' debate."
Work on your reading comprehension, Anonymous @ 9:24 p.m.
I said: "Lloyd Bentsen blew Dan Quayle apart in the VP debate."
That means Quayle lost the debate.
By , at
Wed Oct 01, 09:31:00 PM:
Here go, DEC.
Please don't make me choose. At least not before tomorrow night's debate.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Oct 01, 09:46:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Oct 01, 09:48:00 PM:
I saw them when they happened, Anonymous at 9:31 p.m.
I never liked Quayle.
The issue is whether the "stupidity" tactic works in a Presidential campaign. It didn't work for Democrats 6 out of 9 times.
Go ahead, use it again. As a Republican, I like the odds.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Oct 02, 09:04:00 AM:
Speaking of Sarah Palin...
In the Couric interview she said Roe V. Wade was a bad decision but then stated that she believes there is a constitutional right to privacy. Then she couldn't name another Supreme Court decision. Not even one!
Does this not alarm y'all?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Oct 02, 09:55:00 AM:
No, Gordon, it doesn't.
I do business with a lot of overseas governments run by technocrats. I prefer a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
It wasn't the people of Alaska who created the nation's current financial mess. By the time that crisis is over, everybody may shooting wildlife to eat.
If I want to know about a Supreme Court decision, I can ask a lawyer. You can rent a lawyer just like you can rent a U-Haul truck.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Oct 02, 10:01:00 AM:
"In the Couric interview she said Roe V. Wade was a bad decision but then stated that she believes there is a constitutional right to privacy. Then she couldn't name another Supreme Court decision. Not even one!"
It would bother me more if she were a lawyer. She's not. Obama and Biden are. That they can name Supreme Court cases doesn't make them 'smarter,' it simply demonstrates that they had a legal education. I've had a formal education in government and I still have to look up Supreme Court cases that I otherwise know existed. I'm not an idiot. But I'm also not a lawyer.
I could counter with something to the effect of: 'Well Obama was never in the army. He doesn't even know how to use a gun! What business does he have being commander in chief of the military? Doesn't that bother you?'
By Gary Rosen, at
Thu Oct 02, 02:02:00 PM:
"Not even one!
Does this not alarm y'all?"
About as much as BO not knowing how many states there are, and a lot less than BO's long history of associations with radical leftists like Ayers and Wright. Try this on for size:
http://tinyurl.com/4tmr7w
