Sarah Palin – the other shoe drops

Unfortunately for her rabid detractors, Palin’s fashionable footwear only dropped after having been wedged up their backsides.

No doubt some have heard or spread rumors that Sarah Palin only resigned because a major scandal has been brewing. In fact, some on the right have wondered if that was a possibility.

Turns out the speculation was about corruption and quid pro quo concerning the construction of her house and the Wasilla Sports Complex. One Democrat blogger in Alaska was certain this was the case.

So whence cometh the footwear wedging?

Let’s start with the response from Palin’s attorney, available here at Conservatives4Palin:

On July 3rd, 2009, Governor Sarah Palin announced her intent to resign her gubernatorial duties and transfer the powers of Governor to Lt. Governor Sean Parnell.

Almost immediately afterwards, several unscrupulous people have asserted false and defamatory allegations that the “real” reasons for Governor Palin’s resignation stem from an alleged criminal investigation pertaining to the construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex. This canard was first floated by Democrat operatives in September 2008 during the national campaign and followed up by sympathetic Democratic writers.1. It was easily rebutted then as one of many fabrications about Sarah Palin. Just as power abhors a vacuum, modern journalism apparently abhors any type of due diligence and fact checking before scurrilous allegations are repeated as fact.

[…]

Be sure to read it all, the last paragraph is the best part. Sarah Palin may not have huge feet, but I get the sense she now has the time and lack of official encumbrances to make her idiot critics and slanders wonder how such tiny feet can feel so painful once applied to what they’ve been thinking with.

This claim that she is being investigated takes a further hit from the FBI office in Alaska. From the LA Times:

"There is absolutely no truth to those rumors that we're investigating her or getting ready to indict her," Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. "It's just not true." He added that there was "no wiggle room" in his comments for any kind of inquiry. (Thanks to HotAir Headlines)

It really would be satisfying it Sarah Palin ended up owning several liberal media outlets or at least pushed them into bankruptcy over all this. It’s doubtful that will happen but one can still dream. At the very least the unfolding story that Sarah Palin has begun should be fun and exciting to watch.

---

Filed under: News -- Politics – Palin

Technorati tags: Palin -- Alaska -- scandal -- politics -- democrats -- wasilla sports complex

Mark My Words online store

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Sarah Palin resigns

And across the land emotions ranged from wailing and gnashing of teeth, to the gleeful satisfaction that the endless attacks had succeeded.

The Anchoress has an uber-roundup here that covers the various reactions.

I have little to say to her DailyKos, Andy Sullivan type critics, but to my conservative friends, look at this way. By leaving now, she frees up the administration from the endless cost and wasted time created by the frivolous ethics complaints. The person who will replace her now has that formerly wasted time and resources to accomplish more for Alaska and with his name on it, which puts him in a much better position for the next election. Sure, she could have just decided not to run for a second term, but that would not stop the attacks. In fact, they probably would have intensified due to speculation that she was aiming for a Senate run in 2010 or for President in 2012. It takes some lack of pride to do what will be seen as cowardly by so many, because one believes it is the best thing for Alaska and the country.

It's unrealistic to think she could have changed the ethics law that was being used against her so inappropriately. If she tried to support changing it, when she had previously supported the law, the charge would be that she has something to hide. If she offered the reasonable and truthful explanation that it was being abused for partisan means, she would be criticized for constantly whining about the attacks and biased coverage from the media. She can now campaign for others as she sees fit, unencumbered by that mess. It wouldn't do her much good to win the presidency if Congress is even more in the hands of the Democrats, even if she decides to run later than 2012. She also now has time to burnish her image without that also piling up ridiculous ethics complaints and burdening her administration even more.

Unorthodox? yep! Shocking? yep! End of the world!!? nah!

Of course all the above goes splat if some legitimate scandal comes out. But if it does, she's already shown she has more balls than ethics deficient Democrats and Governor Mark Sanford, who can't seem to get away from a microphone and think about his family, the GOP, or his administration.

Hopefully this is not health related. If it is, her hyper-partisan critics should feel a great deal of shame for the glee they have right now. Don't worry I wont hold my breath expecting them to have any.

So to my conservative friends, take a deep breath, enjoy the holiday with family and friends and let’s wait to see what happens next.

---

Filed under: News -- Politics – Palin

Technorati tags: Palin -- Alaska -- politics -- conservative -- energy -- ethics -- dailyKos -- andrew sullivan

Mark My Words online store

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Abuse of power, where is the outrage?

Obama sacks an Inspector General and breaks a law that he cosponsored by doing so, and that’s just for starters.

Of course some might say that’s nothing because Bush fired a bunch of attorneys! Needer needer nyah nyah!

Yes he did, but another fact often overlooked, due to the conveniently manufactured outrage, is that those attorneys served at the pleasure of the President. While the matter was handled clumsily, that does not mean it was illegal.

Now, let’s get to what we know thus far regarding Obama’s hope and change actions (words are less important after all) as applied to Inspector Generals.

From Ed Morrissey at HotAir:

The firing of Gerald Walpin as Inspector General was not an isolated incident, as the Chicago Tribune reports today.  Two more IGs have been dismissed in the past two weeks, and Senator Charles Grassley has started demanding answers.

[…]

The third incident came last week at the International Trade Commission, where Judith Gwynne worked independent of the White House, and which will be a critical position as Obama reshapes trade arrangements around the world. An ITC employee earlier this year “forcibly removed” paperwork from Gwynne. Rather than back the IG after Grassley wrote a letter demanding answers, the political appointees at the ITC dumped her.

Be sure to read all of Ed’s post for more info.

As Ed says:

We are seeing a pattern, no longer just a single data point.

The silence from the usual suspects is deafening. Well, except for their nyah nyah apples to oranges attempt to deflect that issues forth from some.

---

Filed under: Politics -- News – Obama

Trackposted to: Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, The World According to Carl, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Gerald Walpin -- Judith Gwynne -- Obama

Mark My Words online store

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Does God Exist? More info on tomorrow’s debate

For those who can not make it to the debate or afford the 98$ fee for viewing the debate live and online, there is another option.

As I mentioned in a previous post here:

Christopher Hitchens will be on the side of Atheism and Dr. William Lane Craig will be arguing that God does exist.

[…]

Considering the background of both participants this debate should be quite interesting.

[…]

Even if you can’t make it, spread the word. Reasoned debate between two adversaries, with no quarter drawn, and concerning such an important matter, is a shame to miss simply because one wasn’t aware of the event.

While you won’t be able to see the debate directly, you can follow a live blog of the debate at DoesGodExistDebate.blogspot.com

The debate begins at 7:30 pm (Pacific) on Saturday, April 4, 2009.

You can register for more information and updates at DoesGodExistDebate.com

---

Filed under: Religion -- Christianity – Apologetics

Trackposted to: Nuke's, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Democrat=Socialist, Woman Honor Thyself, Conservative Cat, The World According to Carl, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: hitchens -- william Lane Craig -- God -- apologetics -- biola Unversity -- debate -- religion -- Chrisitianity

Mark My Words online store

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

U.S. Congressman Pete Visclosky thinks you are stupid

Or at least uniformed. Visclosky, in his recent newsletter expressed outrage over the AIG bonuses that have been all over the news.

I am furious that AIG is lavishing over $165 million in “job performance” bonuses on the very executives who ran that company into the ground. (source)

Only a few problems with that. He makes no mention that the Obama administration knew a month ago about the bonuses, which is obviously before Obama read his recent outrage off a teleprompter

[…] For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts.

It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.

[…]

The bonus problem wasn't new, as many lawmakers and administration officials knew only too well. AIG's plans to pay hundreds of millions of dollars were publicized last fall, when Congress started asking questions about expensive junkets the company had sponsored. A November SEC filing by the company details more than $469 million in "retention payments" to keep prized employees. […] (source)

There is no outrage at Chris Dodd for saying he had nothing to do with language in the bail out that protected existing contracted bonuses, only now to admit he did insert that language.

Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN’s Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision. (Thanks to Michelle Malkin - be sure to follow her links)

I’m still waiting for Democrats, that includes you Visclosky, to actually show some outrage over the CRA, Frank, Dodd and at the time Senator Obama running interference against more tightly regulating Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or simply doing nothing to help overcome the resistance of their colleagues in the Democrat party. Let’s not forget ACORN or voting irregularities experienced during the Indiana Democrat primary at the hands of Obama’s campaign. How about some outrage at Chuckie Schumer for releasing his letter that set off a run on a bank?

Sorry Visclosky, I’m not as dumb or uninformed as your newsletter assumes. That would explain why I’ve never voted for you. Then again, I suppose you may be as stupid and uniformed as you assume your constituents must be when you approved that newsletter.

Maybe you’ll correct these oversights with the next one. Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath.

If you would like to let U.S. Congressman Pete Visclosky know that you are more informed than he assumes, here is his contact info:

Washington Office
2256 Rayburn
House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
phone: (202) 225-2461
fax: (202) 225-2493

Northwest Indiana Office
7895 Broadway, Suite A
Merrillville, IN 46410
phone: (219) 795-1844
(888) 423-PETE (toll-free)
fax: (219) 795-1850

If you’re in Indiana’s 1st Congressional District you can use the online form here to correspond.

And yes, I sent him a link to this blog post.

---

Filed under: News – Politics

Trackposted to: Nuke's, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Colorado Sports Desk, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Pete Visclosky -- Barney Frank -- Chris Dodd -- Waxman -- Fannie Mae -- Freddie Mac -- CRA -- Obama -- AIG -- TARP -- economics -- ACORN

Mark My Words online store

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Straw is easy to burn

Playing with fire is fun until you hurt yourself.

It has been noted by others that President Obama tends to caricature his opposition when he argues for support of his policies. Straw-man arguments are easy to burn, which is why they are so tempting to use against one's opponents. Karl Rove has chronicled President Obama's use of this tactic; though I'm sure there will be more examples in the future.

President Barack Obama reveres Abraham Lincoln. But among the glaring differences between the two men is that Lincoln offered careful, rigorous, sustained arguments to advance his aims and, when disagreeing with political opponents, rarely relied on the lazy rhetorical device of "straw men." Mr. Obama, on the other hand, routinely ascribes to others views they don't espouse and says opposition to his policies is grounded in views no one really advocates.

[…]

Mr. Obama portrays himself as a nonideological, bipartisan voice of reason. Everyone resorts to straw men occasionally, but Mr. Obama's persistent use of the device is troubling. Continually characterizing those who disagree with you in a fundamentally dishonest way can be the sign of a person who lacks confidence in the merits of his ideas. […] (source)

Yes it is disturbing but even more so when this is applied in other areas by way of foolishness. When it comes to negotiating with other nations, many of whom have interests that compete with ours and with liberal democracies in general, one needs to not have a misunderstanding of their counterpart when working diplomatic channels. It's bad enough to present their views dishonestly and then argue against that distortion. It is hardly any better to fundamentally misunderstand their motivations and work from such flawed presumptions. John Bolton called this problem “mirror imaging” in his discussion of the problems in the State Dept. bureaucracy.

“Mirror imaging” is related to moral equivalency, but is perhaps an even more widespread operational problem, involving the inability to see that representatives of other countries do not bargain on the same terms as our diplomats. […] If your “interlocutor” thinks you are a limp-wristed, weak-kneed, morally degenerate envoy  of a decaying civilization, his priorities are likely to be very different from yours. In fact, if the person opposite is not your mirror image, your are poised to be taken advantage of, and will perhaps not even be aware of it. […] (Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations, John Bolton, pg 452)

So while the straw is not being placed intentionally, as Obama does for his American competition, it still piles up with our competitors and enemies. I'm sure they don't mind, it just makes it easier to set us afire when they decide to toss the match.

---

Filed under: Politics – Obama

Trackposted to: Nuke's, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Political Byline, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Walls of the City, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Obama -- diplomacy -- straw-man -- fallacy -- Karl Rove -- John Bolton

Mark My Words online store

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions