« A Funny Personal Story | Main | LPGA Tour reverses course on 'English policy' »

Triumph Of The Swill

It's long been said that when a person is under stress, their true nature comes out. Or, as fictional dictator Shan Yu said, "live with a man 40 years, share his house, his meals, speak on every subject. Then tie him up and hold him over the volcano's edge.And on that day you will finally meet the man."

Well, Barack Obama must be under a lot of stress, because he is (or, more likely, his people are) looking to pull the same scumbag stunt that guaranteed him cakewalks in two of his prior campaigns: embarrassing your opponent into withdrawing from the race.

When Obama ran for the United States Senate in 2004, he was not the initial favorite. Instead, businessman and longtime Democrat Blair Hull led in the polls. Then reporters started pestering the courts to get his divorce records unsealed. He fought it, but they were released -- revealing that his wife had accused him of threatening to kill her, and he was arrested. No charges were ever filed in the matter, but the accusation was enough -- Hull was humiliated and withdrew from the race. With Hull gone, Obama won the primary handily.

Then came the general election. The Republican nominee was a guy named Jack Ryan, a man who had become a multimillionaire working for Goldman Sachs. After they went public, he retired and became a teacher in Chicago's inner city. He also managed to woo and wed actress Jeri Ryan (of Star Trek: Voyager and Boston Public fame); the couple had a son before they divorced in 1999.

Ryan was doing very well in the polls -- until reporters decided to pry into his divorce and child custody papers. In those papers, the former Mrs. Ryan had charged that he had taken her to sex clubs in several cities, and pressured her to have sex with him in public there.

The Obama campaign took the high road, and asked that the records not be made an issue. Unfortunately, they did this after numerous Obama staffers kept e-mailing reporters with the latest details on the fight over unsealing the records, urging them to pursue it. In fact, their moral and principled stand was issued a week after a judge ruled that the records would be released.

So that's the pattern. Find your toughest opponent and sic the press on unsealing private, personal records in the hopes of finding something personally humiliating.

And now they're at it again.

I can't track down the actual story (either online or in hard copy), but apparently the National Enquirer is reporting (or going to report) that Sarah Palin had an affair with a now-former business partner of her husband's.

And now that former partner of Todd Palin's is rushing to get his divorce records sealed.

So, what does this mean?

To me, it means that there is most likely NOTHING in there embarrassing to Sarah Palin.

As I said, I can't seem to find the details of the story, but from what I've heard, the business partner's divorce was several years ago.

Now he's getting the records sealed.

He didn't try to get them sealed after Palin was named as McCain's running mate.

Nor when she was elected governor.

Nor when she was running for governor.

He's doing it today.

What's been the biggest change in things?

Why, the Enquirer announcing that Palin had had an affair with a "former business partner of her husband's."

The logic there is that there may be embarrassing things in those documents about this gentleman, but he never thought it would be of interest to anyone -- until the Enquirer published its article.

He's not acting to protect Palin; if that was his motive, he would have tried to get those records sealed long before. It's only now, when the National Enquirer (and hordes of other bottom-feeders) seem to be interested in poring over them, that he belatedly realizes he can ask them to be sealed.

But that idea -- applying logic to the situation -- is asking too much. If there's even the slightest chance that there might be something salacious in there, thats enough to kick off the rampant speculation and mud-slinging.

And in the end, who benefits?

Why, the same man who benefited with the unsealing of Blair Hull's divorce records. The same man who benefited from the unsealing of Jack Ryan's child custody records.

My, what an astonishing coincidence.

Barack Obama has stood for promotions in six elections (primaries and general election for Illinois State Senate in 1995, US representative primary in 2000, US Senate primary and general election in 2004, Democratic presidential primary in 2008) and is on the ballot for president this November.

In that first election, he won the Democratic primary after his supporters kept challenging petition signatures until every single one of his rivals was disqualified. And in his almost monolithically Democratic district, the general election was almost a formality.

He was defeated in his race for the Democratic nomination for the US House in 2000.

As noted, he won the Senate primary and general elections after embarrassing details were revealed from his opponents' divorces.

He won a bruising primary against fellow Democrats, where his staunchest opponent not only had no divorce records, but her husband's chronic infidelity is a matter of common knowledge -- and ridicule.

Now he's running against a divorced man who has no more secrets from his tawdry past -- McCain's chronicled them all, in detail, in books. And McCain's running mate has never been divorced.

But there is the slightest chance she might have been mentioned in someone else's divorce records, so those better be tracked down and aired far and wide.

As I learned in high school geometry, two points determine a line, three a plane, and four a space. How many points of coincidence must be drawn before we see a pattern emerge?

And at what point do we all say we're just sick of the whole mess?

I pray this is not the Change we've been Hoping for.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31407.

Comments (86)

Well, does anyone know off-... (Below threshold)
JW:

Well, does anyone know off-hand if Putin has been divorced in the past? If so, then Obama's got his foreign policy approach towards Russia all laid out for us...

Yeah, if there's one "compl... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

Yeah, if there's one "compliment" I can give Obama, it's that he sure does know how to fight dirty.

Or....And I'm just... (Below threshold)
tbogg Author Profile Page:

Or....

And I'm just throwing this out here: maybe men running for office should refrain from threatening their wives and demanding that they have sex in public with them.

Sure, it sounds crazy, but.it.just.might.work...

Lets go with worse case sce... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Lets go with worse case scenario.

Say Palin did have an affair. So WHAT? DOES THAT DISQUALIFY HER FROM DOING HER JOB AS VP?

As the dems answered so well with CLINTON the answer is no.

But the left doesnt get that the Clinton scandal wasnt just about sex but mainly was about perjury and subjuration of perjury. Yeah it was perjury about sex but it could have easily been perjury about business dealings.

Married people have troubles. At least 50% of marriages have one partner who has been unfaithful at least once. Crap happens.

So is the hypocritcal democratic party going to look stupid yet again?? They cant help themselves. Meanwhile women across America will say "Bill ran around on Hillary and she stuck by him and look at how they mistreated her. Now they are trying to say if a woman has an affair then she should be burned at the stake and not able to run for office". That will go over BIG with the proHillary voters that wont it.

3 words:Chicago Thug... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

3 words:
Chicago Thug Politics

Liberals or more importantl... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

Liberals or more importantly EMPTY suit liberals can't RUN on qualifications or issues.

They must slime and push their agenda through courts and media scum. That's just the way it is period.

True enough, TBogg. The onl... (Below threshold)

True enough, TBogg. The only things that deserve to be kept private are driving a police car drunk, tasering ten-year-olds, and threatening to kill your father-in-law.

Among other things, of course.

J.

Apparently the motion to se... (Below threshold)
Denise:

Apparently the motion to seal was denied. I couldn't find anything of value except the Richters seem to have gone back to court several times.
http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw2000.o_party_sum?68762762|1

Or....And I... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

Or....

And I'm just throwing this out here: maybe men running for office should refrain from threatening their wives and demanding that they have sex in public with them.

True, but what is said in private between a man and wife should remain that way. I'm sure my mom would blush if she ever heard some of the things my wife and I talk about when we're feeling... shall we say... Deviant? It's nobodys business but our own.

Who's to say that "demanded sex in public" wasn't just him asking 2 times. 1st time (and I'm not judging here) she was uncomfortable. 2nd she felt badgered and as if he was demanding it. Heaven knows there are a thousand shades of grey in there where human communication and marital dynamics are involved. Heck. There was even 1 time my wife and I got into a HUGE fight over a single question about her cooking. I asked "Did you put garlic salt in this?" I simply wanted to know if she did anything different, as I thought it tasted better than normal. She took it as a backhanded swipe at her domestic economic skills in general and her cooking in specific. And of course, our neighbor heard the fight... and suggested my wife look into going to a womens shelter (it was a yelling match).

We're all on the outside looking in with no idea the context of many of these issues (Mr. Ryan, Gov Palin, etc...). And to be perfectly honest, it's none of our business.

So why is it being interjected into politics when it has no business being there?

I got banned from Lee's swi... (Below threshold)
Michael:

I got banned from Lee's swill site...I am so proud.

"I got banned from Lee'... (Below threshold)
marc:

"I got banned from Lee's swill site...I am so proud."

Isn't that kinda like saying your proud of being human.

I mean you should be but it's not like you had a choice and well... there's so damn many of us.

I was banned months ago for quoting him, believe it or not.

Ya wanna really spin him up download one of the free IP anonymizer programs. Then go back in and harass the asshat.

Obama used illegal drugs al... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Obama used illegal drugs alot, and hangs with domestic terrorists. What part of that does America not get?

S/He just banned me too! Wh... (Below threshold)
Denise:

S/He just banned me too! What a wuss; can't handle the truth.

The Wilson sisters lawsuit is bogus and s/he doesn't want to know.

Friday afternoon, we heard back from the McCain campaign, which issued the following statement: "The McCain campaign respects intellectual property rights. Accordingly, prior to using 'Barracuda' at any events, we paid for and obtained all necessary licenses."

-

So, if Palin had an affair,... (Below threshold)
CarlF:

So, if Palin had an affair, does that mean the media will think she can only be as good as the last President we had?

Or would she need to have the affair in the actual Oval Office?

I love it when the people w... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

I love it when the people who supported Clinton and Edwards get all flustered when a public official wants to have sex with his wife. Apparantly it's a foreign concept to them.

Interesting that the r... (Below threshold) So the lefties are looking ... (Below threshold)

So the lefties are looking to The National Enquirer for salvation from Sarahcuda.

Wow. We just might win this thing yet.

And the Scott Richter conne... (Below threshold)

And the Scott Richter connection goes down in flames in 3... 2... 1...

Peggy Noonan predicted this... (Below threshold)

Peggy Noonan predicted this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122044753790594947.html?mod=todays_columnists

The money quote is this...

She could become a transformative political presence.

So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.

And it's going to be brutal. It's already getting there.

September 3rd...

Based on what I've learned of McCain in the last few months (again, I urge anyone to read Timberg's two books on him) I wouldn't be surprised if his response was to tell the dirt diggers to shove it...publicly.


Wow, there are so many poin... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Wow, there are so many points of right-wing cognitive dissonance in here, it's hard to know where to begin.

First of all, says Jay not two months ago:

The most common dismissal I've seen is that "it's just the Enquirer." After all, they're just a supermarket tabloid. They don't have any journalistic credibility.

I beg to differ.

...
the Enquirer has been exceptionally careful to not get caught in the wringer again. They double-check their sources, and make sure they have at least one person on the record making the allegation.
...
But as far as accuracy goes, the Enquirer has a damned good record.... In fact, I'd put their record for accuracy above the New York Times, CNN, and the major network news operations.

You want to ignore the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter love child story? Fine. Just come up with a better reason than "it's just the Enquirer." Yes, they're slimy. Yes, they're bottom-feeders. Yes, they're paparazzi. Yes, they're scum.

But they have earned a reputation for accuracy, and it's only the fools who dismiss their reports out of hand.

Well, that didn't last very long.

Then there's:

Say Palin did have an affair. So WHAT? DOES THAT DISQUALIFY HER FROM DOING HER JOB AS VP?

And yet it seemed to be pretty important when John Edwards and John Kerry were the subjects of the rumors, eh?

As the dems answered so well with CLINTON the answer is no.

Oh, so now you choose to agree with a supposed Dem position once it applies to your candidate? Fliiiip-floooop.

Good grief The li... (Below threshold)
MF:

Good grief
The liberals are having a fit now that Ms. Palin
is McCain's VP and they have nothing so they are
digging for any dirt they can find or send rumors about to deflect them having to answer questions and providing specifics of how they would run the Presidency. If any of the rumors are true I am sure Ms. Palin will provide a news release and then the public needs to move on... The public respects straight forward versus lies...
gee,,,it's not like she is President while this happened if it happened...
this reminds me of my friend's pilot that told me that he was a pilot when the Clinton's
were in office and the Mrs was on board
there were things that happened on the plane that shouldnt have. I didnt inquire what but he quit after that. I am surprised the pilot hasnt mysteriously died.

I pray for American and the candidates.

It's important to note that... (Below threshold)
mcg Author Profile Page:

It's important to note that the Enquirer's story is very carefully written (folks at the Corner have seen and quoted the copy). They are not alleging she had an affair; they are saying that someone else alleged she had an affair. Thus their reporting can be entirely correct factually even if there was no affair.

ClobberGirl, good work, tha... (Below threshold)
mcg Author Profile Page:

ClobberGirl, good work, thanks for the link. Key quote: "And a TSG review of the 98-page file shows that the Palins are only mentioned in Richter's sealing request."

"Todd discovered the... (Below threshold)
Denise:


"Todd discovered the affair and quickly dissolved his friendship and his business associations with the guy," charges an enemy. "Many people in Alaska are talking about the rumor and say Todd swept it under the rug."

Such a neatly framed argume... (Below threshold)

Such a neatly framed argument Brian, yet in your predictably disingenuous way, you ommit certain facts that otherwise would make your point...welll...pointless, which is where we always find you here.

What does Jay's defense of the Enquirer have to do with cognitive dissonance?

And yet it seemed to be pretty important when John Edwards and John Kerry were the subjects of the rumors, eh?

Objection, your honor....the commenter is projecting. The difference between John Edwards and John Kerry? John Edwards is a liar. John Kerry is a fool.

Are you calling Sarah Palin an adulturer? Man up Brian...say it.

It looks as if this one has... (Below threshold)
RPL:

It looks as if this one has been shot down as well. Hotair.com has the details of the case.

Wow, this is fun, isn't it?... (Below threshold)

Wow, this is fun, isn't it?

===========================

And c'mon, Marc, give Michael his due. Bravo Michael - at least you made *me* laugh.

I notice that CNN has been ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

I notice that CNN has been up in Alaska interviewing all kinds of former peers of Palin's including people she's run against in elections, who of course don't have flattering things to say. She's made a lot of enemies in that state which is expected if you shake things up. They smell blood.

So where are the interviews with Alice Palmer? And this Blair Hull guy? I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who have come in contact with Obama's thugs en route to his power push. Will we see anyone interview them? Of course not.

The one positive thing CNN ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

The one positive thing CNN did today was get the EXCLUSIVE interview with the state trooper who she is accused of trying to get fired.

The interview makes him look horrible. They bring up all the things he's been accused of, and he admits some of them, but denies the rest. And he doesn't look convincing at all.

HughS, dude - you know bett... (Below threshold)

HughS, dude - you know better than that. Brian has no opinions other than to opine on what level of hypocrisy we're engaging in. If he actually offered a concrete opinion on anything, he'd have to answer for it at some point. Get real.

:)

This may be the crazy that'... (Below threshold)

This may be the crazy that's gotten into me since I defended Oprah this morning, but I think Brian does have a point. If Palin is found to have had an affair, this election is over. Conservatives are not going to be able to play the "it's only sex" card, and pointing to Democratic affairs of the past will be a cold comfort. Personally I don't even like the fact that McCain has affairs 30+ years in his past, but at least they're in the distant past and he's been open about those transgressions for a long time. They're old news and most people are past the point of caring.

HOWEVER, I suspect that all the Enquirer has is anonymous sources alleging an affair, which means they have nothing. They have a lot of balls, a lot of snark, and they get crazy stories right sometimes (Edwards, Jolie-Thornton and the blood vials, etc.), but most of their stories are "a source tells the Enquirer ..." And no one is going to believe a Palin affair on that, especially not when they admit that their source is an enemy of Palin's.

Accusations are thrown back... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Accusations are thrown back and forth during messy divorces. True or untrue, nasty things are said, and sealing the records is partly done so as not to make these accusations public.

The Ryan accusations were made during the child custody proceedings. Jack Ryan asked that these still be sealed so as to protect their child. But the Dem-friendly judge ignored the interests of the child for the sake of a slap on the back from the party establishment and the MSM.

I hear ya Oyster! ... (Below threshold)

I hear ya Oyster!

Sometimes you just have to kick the ant hill.

CNN? Harassing people for ... (Below threshold)

CNN? Harassing people for dirt? Say it ain't so! It seems CNN has taken a sudden interest in National Enquirer stories now too. No wonder Richter wanted his records sealed. The press slithered into town hissing and spitting.

Objection, your honor...... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Objection, your honor....the commenter is projecting. The difference between John Edwards and John Kerry? John Edwards is a liar. John Kerry is a fool.

John Edwards was shown to be a liar when the National Enquirer and the right pursued the allegation until they caught him. John Kerry... wait, he's a fool for NOT having an affair? Drudge even had to publicly apologize for that one!

Are you calling Sarah Palin an adulturer?

Now you're projecting. As I said with John Edwards, let the facts reveal the truth.

Man up Brian...say it.

Your idea of "manning up" is to draw a conclusion about someone without any evidence? 'Splains a lot.

HughS, dude - you know b... (Below threshold)
Brian:

HughS, dude - you know better than that. Brian has no opinions

I've offered many opinions, as you well know, since you have responded to many of them with vacuous rebuttals. You're quite adept at the snark, I must admit, but somewhat lacking on substance.

other than to opine on what level of hypocrisy we're engaging in.

Someone has to! Is that not a valid criticism? Is it not reasonable to influence someone's opinion by reminding them that they had the exact opposite opinion in a different situation? (With Republicans, perhaps not.)

If he actually offered a concrete opinion on anything, he'd have to answer for it at some point. Get real.

Wow, I'm taking so much flak, I must be right.

Let's say - hypothetically ... (Below threshold)
jpe:

Let's say - hypothetically - that she did have an affair with the business partner. What would you guys think?

"John Kerry... wait, he'... (Below threshold)

"John Kerry... wait, he's a fool for NOT having an affair?"

See? Now this is why some of us don't care what you think, Brian. You make shit up. You've done it to me too. It's old. You need new material.

BrianYou seemed to... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Brian

You seemed to have missed the most important part of my statement.

a. Clinton was about perjury PURE AND SIMPLE.
Where is the perjury here or subornation of perjury? THere is NONE. So therefore you lose the Clinton argument.

b. Edwards and Kerry - I dont remember anything about Kerry having an affair so I wont comment on it. Edwards was having an affair with a SUBORDINATE and USED CAMPAIGN FUNDS along with LYING when asked about it the MIDDLE OF A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. Plus the PRESS TOTALLY IGNORED IT WHILE PANTING LIKE DOGS IN HEAT OVER THIS.

b1. TO my knowledge noone has asked Palin about this and gotten a comment.

b2. Having not been asked she hasnt lied.

b3. IF she had an affair it wasnt with an employee and paid them with campaign finances.

b4. The affair (If there was one) was over years ago and not in the middle of a Presidential campaign.

I know those itsy bitsy details escape you in your froth to smear the lady but once again YOU LOSE.


Michael,Congratula... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

Michael,

Congratulations! I lasted for two days. Apparently, asking awkward questions and pointing out sexist behavior is considered verboten.

OTOH, it's freeing up valuable time but still suffering from withdrawl. Going there is kinda like meth - you know its bad for you, you only plan to do it once and suddenly - damn - you're arguing with a disingenuous nit and thinking you can win.

John Edwards was show... (Below threshold)

John Edwards was shown to be a liar when the National Enquirer and the right pursued the allegation until they caught him.

No, Brian, he was shown to be a liar when he lied. Don't try to mitigate the fact with qualifying language such as "the right pursued the allegation until they caught him". That's the sort of weasel remark that liberals utter when they have been hoist on their own petard...how's the wind up there?

Now you're projecting. As I said with John Edwards, let the facts reveal the truth.

You're making yourself out to be Andrew Sullivan material here...the passive aggressive crap won't play on this, Brian. Want to know why? Because conservative women can smell bull shit a mile away.

As I said, man up. Or shut up.

Let's say - hypothetical... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Let's say - hypothetically - that she did have an affair with the business partner. What would you guys think?

37. Posted by jpe | September 5, 2008 10:16 PM

Heh. Which is exactly what Brocko wants to happen - have everyone speculate about an alleged affair.

Not very Hopey or Changey, is he?


Here's some potentially use... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

Here's some potentially useful info though of dubious sources.

http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/5/04851/95453/373/587455

Seems Debbie Richter, not her husband had the affair with yet another partner in the business. No mention so far of Palin having anything to do with it.

Excuse me while I go shower the Kos off....

Brave man, Paul, going into... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

Brave man, Paul, going into such tainted waters for intel.

Don't forget to scrub behind your ears. ;)

Paul Duffau: Holy crap. Th... (Below threshold)

Paul Duffau: Holy crap. They're still trying to deny Todd Palin's paternity? Why? What the hell is wrong with those people? This has progressed beyond fever swamp. It's officially a full blown psychosis.

Brian and Co. realize they ... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Brian and Co. realize they are losing hence the smears and lies. The libs are such losers. Too funny.

Vetting petition signatures... (Below threshold)
markg8:

Vetting petition signatures is done all the time in Illinois by both parties. Why? Because it's easier to sit around a table and phony up those sigs than it is to walk the neighborhoods knocking on doors to get them. People cheat and when they do it's better to catch them. Like Obama's opponents did in that election.

Looks like Todd's partner lost, just as Ryan did. The judge won't let him seal the records. I don't know if anything will come of it but I imagine if Mrs Ex-Biz-Partner named Sarah Palin as a homewrecker who ruined her marriage she won't be such a big celebrity with the right anymore.

And BTW Wooten didn't get to seal his records and thanks to Palin we know all about the ugly accusations she and her family made against him don't we?

Oh and I'm sure you weren't crying these tears of outrage for John Edwards when the Enquirer went after him.


Lets go with worse case ... (Below threshold)
markg8:

Lets go with worse case scenario.

Say Palin did have an affair. So WHAT? DOES THAT DISQUALIFY HER FROM DOING HER JOB AS VP?

LOL you do realize how hypocritical this is coming from the right don't you? How many Christian family values voters do you think you're gonna hang onto? They'd burn you, John McCain and Sarah Palin at the stake for even suggesting it.

Oyster: They're thinking l... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

Oyster: They're thinking less straight than normal. You'd think they'd get embarrassed after a while but no...

Here's a fun one....

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/franklin-nc/TLLOKQT3ASR45CK58/p7#c124


You can actually find a couple of different references though nobody major is picking it up (yet).


"Vetting petition signat... (Below threshold)

"Vetting petition signatures is done all the time in Illinois by both parties."

They have two parties in Illinois?

"...but I imagine if Mrs Ex-Biz-Partner named Sarah Palin as a homewrecker who ruined her marriage she won't be such a big celebrity with the right anymore."

Um..have you been paying attention?

"And BTW Wooten didn't get to seal his records and thanks to Palin we know all about the ugly accusations she and her family made against him don't we?"

Um...Wooten is a public servant. Bit of a difference, wouldn't you say? And which of the accusations were untrue? Tasering his child? Drinking in his squad car? Shooting a moose out of season? I would think that you might make the moose a bigger priority than his child though.

markg8:You do real... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

markg8:

You do realize that Officer Wooten was found to have committed the following acts:

Issued a death threat against the parent of the sitting Governor;

Illegally shot a moose;

Tasered a 10 (or 11 -accounts differ slightly) boy.

I'm usually a pretty big supporter of cops but this steps over the line.

Most of the charges in the NE article are from the Wooten clan by the way. I'm guessing that they don't qualify as impartial.

Aww... some of you are goin... (Below threshold)

Aww... some of you are going to be very depressed.

Saint Andy of the Bleeding Rectum is going to watch his favorite Palin Conspiracy Of The Day collapse.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0905083palin1.html

It seems that Todd Palin's business partner wanted to seal his divorce records not because there was any references to an affair with Sarah Palin, but because liberal journalists were being harassing assholes that were violating his privacy.

Nice try, Sullybot, but the One will not be pleased.

The McCain campaign has alr... (Below threshold)
Dogs of War:

The McCain campaign has already issued a statement about is and call the allegations
"categorically false" and may seek "legal
actions"

ExSubNuke Ryan knew she was... (Below threshold)
markg8:

ExSubNuke Ryan knew she was an aspiring actress. Felate him in public at a sex club and she'd only have a future acting career in porn. Jack Ryan was out to ruin her career and despicably trying to make sure she'd always be financially dependent on him.

The rumors about him were all over the place before the primary. Ryan lied to the IL Republican party when they questioned him about it. Right to their faces.

You missed the point of my ... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

You missed the point of my post. What you say is probably true, I didn't do any research into it. I was just posting a hypothetical, as well as a 100% true personal story to make my point. The point was that personal issues of the family have no place in politics. I personally dispise the character of former President Clinton (mainly due to his philandering). I would never knock Hillary for staying with him. She had her reasons, and they're none of my business.

The details of the Ryans divorce were not and still remain, none of my business.

THAT'S the point.

Um...what ... (Below threshold)
markg8:

Um...what is Sarah Palin? Queen of Alaska?

Bit of a difference, wouldn't you say? And which of the accusations were untrue? Tasering his child? Drinking in his squad car? Shooting a moose out of season? I would think that you might make the moose a bigger priority than his child though.

Got me. But what I do know is the judge in the divorce case questioned back then, three years ago why the Palin family was trying to destroy him, get him fired and make it impossible for him to pay child support. All evidence, some tape recorded recently, points to this vendetta resulting in all kinds of abuse of power and now a cover up.

Sarah Palin is running to be Vice President to a man who still suffers greatly from his war wounds and the torture he got in Vietnam. He's a type A personality with a hot temper and is past the age his dad and grandfather dropped dead of sudden heart attacks.

It behooves us to find out as much as we can about this neophyte he suddenly pulled out of obscurity. The stonewalling, cover ups and his hasty decision without much vetting at all are very telling about what a McCain/Palin administration would look like.

markg8 - I don't know how ... (Below threshold)

markg8 - I don't know how your used to operating, but we like solid sources and documentation here. Not rampant speculation and divinations into the minds of people. "He lied" doesn't quite cut the mustard. We've heard that exact line somewhere before. Gimme a minute, I'll come up with it....

"It behooves us to find ... (Below threshold)

"It behooves us to find out as much as we can about this neophyte he suddenly pulled out of obscurity."

Cut the faux concern crap. You don't like her. Period. You're not "vetting" her. You've already decided. You're throwing stuff at the wall hoping some will stick.

The point was that perso... (Below threshold)
markg8:

The point was that personal issues of the family have no place in politics.

Tell it to John Edwards, tell it to Teresa Heinz Kerry, tell it to Chelsea Clinton (wanna hear McCain's joke about her dad Janet Reno again?).

You're running a candidate who divorced his horribly injured wife after cheating on her for years to marry his politically connected, filthy rich heiress five weeks after the papers were signed. Your vice presidential candidate took a town that had no debt and despite the $27 million in federal pork her hired Abramoff lobbyist and Ted Stevens got her managed to leave Wasilla $22 million in debt. Three of those pork projects even made McCain's wasteful spending list. So who ya gonna believe about that? McCain or Palin?

This woman's family singlehandedly puts the lie to abstinence only sex education's efficacy. You'd think if it was gonna work anywhere it'd be in Sarahbarracuda's house.

You guys trumpet the choice both she and Bristol made to keep their babies ignoring the fact that if McCain and Palin had their way they'd have no choice. That might work out fine for a governor, her husband who works part time and their daughter but there's a lot of women and girls Bristol's age who'd wind up bringing another welfare baby into the world and relegating themselves and their kids to a lifetime of poverty.

Let's face it, you guys love ripping the families of Democrats, look in the back of your fridge, you probably still have a bottle of "W" ketchup, but when your candidates blow up in your faces then we hear can't we all play nice?

<a href="http://www.washing... (Below threshold)
markg8:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/30/AR2008083002366.html

The divorce went to trial in the fall of 2005 while the state police internal investigation was pending. Anchorage Superior Court Judge John Suddock reviewed the complaints filed by Palin and her family. At trial on Oct. 27, 2005, the judge expressed puzzlement about why the family was trying to get Wooten fired, since depriving the trooper of a job would harm his ability to pay family support to Palin's sister.
"It appears for the world that Ms. McCann and her family have decided to take off for the guy's livelihood -- that the bitterness of whatever who did what to whom has overridden good judgment," Suddock said in an audio recording from the trial on TV station KTUU's Web site. "Aesop told us not to slay the goose who lays the golden egg. For whatever reason, people are trying to slay the goose here and it tends to diminish his earning capacity."
Have any of you seen Jeri R... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Have any of you seen Jeri Ryan? Wouldn't you want everyone to know that yes, you really were doing her?

Markg8So - it's ok... (Below threshold)

Markg8

So - it's okay for a cop to taser a kid in Alaska AND KEEP HIS JOB?

So - it's okay for a cop to be drinking in his car (I assume he gives himself a breathalyzer check to make sure he's not over the limit) AND KEEP HIS JOB?

The last would get him canned here in Georgia, child support or no. The tasering of a kid - well, guess it'd depend on the kid, right? Little snot probably had it coming to him, so it's justifiable, isn't it?

Sorry - those two complaints (which, seeing they were made probably had some pretty substantial evidence behind them, right? But then again, it's not really necessary to have evidence since merely the allegation is sufficient, correct?) would probably be enough to get him canned, divorce or no.

As far as McCain goes - his mother is 96, and doing VERY well - I could wish my 91 year old mother looked a quarter as healthy. I think McCain's going to do very well as President - and if he should pass in office, I think Palin would be able to step up and do the job well indeed.

>"John Kerry... wait, he... (Below threshold)
Brian:

>"John Kerry... wait, he's a fool for NOT having an affair?"
See? Now this is why some of us don't care what you think, Brian. You make shit up.

Huh? What did I make up? I noted that Kerry was falsely accused of having an affair, and the response I got was "Kerry is a fool". Given that my original statement is incontrovertible fact, there aren't even enough words left in that exchange for me to have made up a damn thing.

As I said, you're quite adept at the snark, but lacking on substance. It's old. You need new material.

Tell it to John Edwards,... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

Tell it to John Edwards, tell it to Teresa Heinz Kerry, tell it to Chelsea Clinton (wanna hear McCain's joke about her dad Janet Reno again?).

Ok, now I'm going to take personal umbrage. Do you know me? I know you don't. So what the fuck makes you think you know that I didn't have a problem with it?

I've had a problem with ANYONE on EITHER side taking it to the family. It has no place. Period.

Asshat.

Hoo boy. I go to bed and th... (Below threshold)

Hoo boy. I go to bed and things go all higgledy-piggledy.

In no particular order:

1) In my defense of the Enquirer, brian quoted it precisely right: I said that they have their precise ethical standards, and they follow them to the letter. They always get at least one source on the record. That source may be anonymous and paid for talking, but they have that person on the record -- which covers their asses from getting sued.

In this case, Denise has the money quote: "Todd discovered the affair and quickly dissolved his friendship and his business associations with the guy," charges an enemy. "Many people in Alaska are talking about the rumor and say Todd swept it under the rug."

The got ONE person, whom they describe as an "enemy" of Palin's, to say what they wanted to publish: that the affair happened, and "many" people are talking about it -- just only one of them would talk to the Enquirer.

There. Legal obligation fulfilled. The Enquirer is safe, and technically accurate -- one person, whom they have on record, said what the Enquirer reports they said. No actual proof that the person is honest and accurate, but the Equirer is safe.

2) Trooper Wooten's offenses are FACT. He was found by a panel to have committed them, and he acknowledged them. He DID drink and drive in a cruiser while on duty. He DID use his taser on his then-ten-year-old stepson. He DID threaten to kill his wife and father-in-law -- also known as "the sitting governor's father and sister" -- while employed by the agency that is responsible for the physical safety of the governor and her immediate family.

And for that, that same agency found his offenses worthy of a ten-day suspension. And his union thought that was too much, so they appealed it and had it reduced to five.

3) Palin's official reason for removing the head of the State Police was his going behind her back and trying to set his own policy with the legislature, defying her lawful authority as Chief Executive of the state, as well as poor performance of some other aspects of his job. Also, as a political appointee, she had the right to remove him at any time for any reason, or no reason.

I suspect that his role in Wooten's getting a slap on the wrist was a minor aggravating factor -- she might have cut him a smidgen of slack had he not prior shown himself to be willing to protect a bad cop. But that was just another sign that he had no respect for her or his duties (which, as noted, involve keeping the governor and immediate family safe, and here's one of his own threatening to kill two of them) and so she offered him a graceful way out, with another job -- enforcing the liquor laws -- but he refused, and was fired.

3) jpe asks: "Let's say - hypothetically - that she did have an affair with the business partner. What would you guys think?"

First things first, jpe. There's never been a hint of actual evidence of infidelity, so there's nothing to build the speculation on.

On the other hand, Barack Obama has freely admitted to using pot and cocaine (illegally, unlike Palin's own use of pot when it was legal in Alaska). A lot of users often support their habit by dealing as well.

Hypothetically, of course, would your support of Obama be affected if it turned out he had sold cocaine? Would you want a former drug dealer as president?

Just hypothetically speaking, of course.

(God, I feel slimy just typing that.)

Or here's another one. Joe Biden has hair plugs. He has undergone cosmetic surgery voluntarily, for his own gratification.

Could he also be a "cutter?" Could he be one of those people who maim and wound themselves out of some sick psychological compulsion? Do you want to place a cutter one heartbeat away from the presidency?

There's more foundation for those two accusations than your speculation, jpe.

J.

brian, the "Edwards was a l... (Below threshold)

brian, the "Edwards was a liar. Kerry was a fool" statement is factually correct. Edwards DID lie, and Kerry IS a fool, in so many ways.

I dunno how you somehow got "Kerry is a fool FOR NOT HAVING AN AFFAIR," because it's probably the dumbest possible interpretation. (Oh, that explains it.) Kerry is a buffoon and an idiot in so many ways, but one of them is NOT "giving your sugar mama an excuse to dump your freeloading ass so you have to hunt up a THIRD millionaire to marry and sponge off."

Don't even THINK of challenging me to cite all the ways Kerry is a fool.

Also, I don't recall any rumors of Kerry's infidelity EVER. It seems that that is one flaw he doesn't have. And good for him -- I knew he couldn't be a COMPLETE idiot. Are you just making shit up again to confuse the issue and change the subject? I can't imagine you ever doing anything like that... except ALL THE TIME.

J.

a. Clinton was about per... (Below threshold)
Brian:

a. Clinton was about perjury PURE AND SIMPLE.

Ah, so the talk in the media and in right-wing pep squads of Clinton having an affair began only after the perjury?

So therefore you lose the Clinton argument.

I didn't make a "Clinton argument", so there is nothing for me to lose. You're remembering things that weren't there.

I dont remember anything about Kerry having an affair so I wont comment on it.

Really? Drudge and Rush were all over it, even after it was shown to be false. (Well, Drudge did have to make a public apology.) Now you're forgetting things that were there.

Edwards was having an affair with a SUBORDINATE and USED CAMPAIGN FUNDS

If you're suggesting that that was the reason for the condemnation from the right, that's bullshit. The salivation over Edwards having an affair began with "an unknown woman".

along with LYING when asked about it the MIDDLE OF A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

Again, bullshit. You're using 20/20 hindsight. Edwards was hounded with rumors of an affair through the campaign. It's only been one month since those rumors were publicly confirmed and he was shown to have been lying. (Let's ignore the "I knew he was lying" crowd and just stick to the facts, shall we?) So say what you want about him now, but you can't go back in time and claim that the right's problem with him back during the 2004 campaign was just that he was lying about it.

b1. TO my knowledge noone has asked Palin about this and gotten a comment.

As noted previously, your knowledge is faulty.

b2. Having not been asked she hasnt lied.

No, it's been asked and answered. But how can you declare that someone hasn't lied unless you know the actual truth? Many claimed Kerry was lying, and they were wrong. Many claimed Edwards was lying, and they were right. Both conclusions were arrived at after the denials.

What you mean to say is, "I believe her." Which is fine, but it's not factually definitive.

You had no problem with those who thought Edwards was lying and pursued the story until they found the truth, so why do you have any problem with those who think Palin is lying and pursue the story until they find the truth? Even recently, Wizbang posters were demanding that the MSM put more effort into Edwards allegations, so why not Palin's?

b3. IF she had an affair it wasnt with an employee and paid them with campaign finances.

Dismissed earlier as irrelevant.

b4. The affair (If there was one) was over years ago and not in the middle of a Presidential campaign.

Ah, the new McCain "family values" platform.

I know those itsy bitsy details escape you in your froth to smear the lady but once again YOU LOSE.

Yes, I admit that your revisionist "itsy bitsy details" escaped me. Though the only froth was around your muddled representation of actual events.

Good grief, brian, I see wh... (Below threshold)

Good grief, brian, I see why you go by that name -- it's obvious that you are no brain.

Ah, the new McCain "family values" platform.

Let's see... would that be the same John McCain who has admitted, in writing, that he had numerous affairs during his first marriage?

But you just can't let go of your attempt to change the subject, can you? Isn't it astonishing just how many times Barack Obama's political fortunes have been boosted by the exposure of embarrassing personal information about those who stand between him and his goals?

Perhaps his opponents should hire the people who are using every possible tactic to keep Obama's own secrets -- such as just what he did as a "community organizer," or what he did as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge...

J.

No, Brian, he was shown ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

No, Brian, he was shown to be a liar when he lied. Don't try to mitigate the fact with qualifying language

What you call "qualifying language" is your failure to understand that words have meanings. If he was "shown" to be a liar 4 years ago, why did the Enquirer waste resources verifying it? And why was it such a big deal when they did?

I'm sure life is easy for you scanners, but some of us still prefer conclusions backed by evidence.

Trooper Wooten's offense... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Trooper Wooten's offenses are FACT.

Jay, this is a repeat of your Scooter Libby defense. You don't get a pass at committing illegal or unethical actions just because you perceive your target to be a bad guy.

And for that, that same agency found his offenses worthy of a ten-day suspension. And his union thought that was too much, so they appealed it and had it reduced to five.

All within the charge of that agency. If Palin wanted to overrule them and that's a legitimate action allowed in her role, I'm guessing there were ways to do it other than having an aide call and say "umm, the governor can't believe this guy is still employed, nudge, nudge, wink, wink".

brian, the "Edwards was ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

brian, the "Edwards was a liar. Kerry was a fool" statement is factually correct. Edwards DID lie, and Kerry IS a fool, in so many ways.

I suspect I'd agree with you on that in more than one way.

I dunno how you somehow got "Kerry is a fool FOR NOT HAVING AN AFFAIR,"

Beats me. I posted that Kerry was accused of having an affair, and "Kerry is a fool" is the answer I got. If you can come up with another relevant meaning, I'm open to hearing it.

Also, I don't recall any rumors of Kerry's infidelity EVER. ... Are you just making shit up again to confuse the issue and change the subject? I can't imagine you ever doing anything like that... except ALL THE TIME.

Jay, don't make me doubt your researching skills. But here's a handout.

Let's see... would that ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Let's see... would that be the same John McCain who has admitted, in writing, that he had numerous affairs during his first marriage?

Yes, the very same. The one who, along with Giuliani, prompted the right to forget that adultery was a character issue.

But you just can't let go of your attempt to change the subject, can you? Isn't it astonishing just how many times Barack Obama's political fortunes...

Who's changing the subject now? Your post begins with a recap of Obama's past, and then suddenly switches to a National Enquirer allegation about Palin, with no connection whatsoever to Obama, other than your unsupported insinuation.

I'm not making accusations,... (Below threshold)

I'm not making accusations, brian, I'm just asking questions. Questions like "isn't it odd how many times Obama, when faced with real political challenges, has been helped by the discovery of embarrassing personal information about his opponents from previously-sealed court records?"

If your answer is "no, I don't think that's odd," then just say so. Just say "I don't think it's unusual at all that the very same sort of thing that is happening to Sarah Palin also happened to Jack Ryan and Blair Hull when they were between Obama and the office he wanted."

No need to throw up all these distractions and diversions and deliberate misinterpretations of others' words and pointless tangential discussions, brian. Just address and dismiss the point raised.

Why, it's almost as if you think there might be something to the question, and are willing to pour all your efforts into making sure that it is not discussed...

J.

Yes, the very same. T... (Below threshold)

Yes, the very same. The one who, along with Giuliani, prompted the right to forget that adultery was a character issue.

Last comment on this thread where Brian has changed the subject countless times, shows no reading comprehension and is obviously rattled because Jay has tagged him too many times.

Brian, adultery is bad, but people on both sides of the aisle are human and those of us with any experience in life can forgive and move on. What most folks don't like is a person who lies about it.

"Jay, this is a repeat o... (Below threshold)

"Jay, this is a repeat of your Scooter Libby defense. You don't get a pass at committing illegal or unethical actions just because you perceive your target to be a bad guy."

Brian, first, if I remember correctly, the first tenet of justice is that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Arguments about what led to Libby's conviction of obstruction does not mean that one sees him as innocent of those charges. That the investigation commenced AFTER it was determined who leaked Plame's name is - and was - a point of contention. But enough of that.

The question is not whether the target (Wooten) is a bad guy. That's already been established. It was established even before Palin took office. The guy is, by all accounts, a powder-keg. Jay recaps that and you perceive it to be a defense of Palin.

The question is whether Palin "abused her power". I'm always suspicious of such charges when simple things like "they serve at the pleasure of the Governor" or "they serve at the pleasure of the President" come into play. It's much like Jay's role here. You (or I) comment at his pleasure. He can wield Thor's hammer for any reason or no reason at all.

He says she fired him for not firing Wooten. She says she fired him, nay, offered him a different position, for disagreements over budgetary matters. It's as simple as that. All we're seeing on the internet is one side of the story. Fair questions need to be asked and answers determined about BOTH parties involved. That's what the investigatory panel is charged with doing. A lot of people are making determinations based on what one side is releasing to the public. This is what we call the "court of public opinion", because it's exactly what Monegan's counsel is doing. Trying her in this imaginary court. We see this all the time.

We may yet see emails that support Palin's contention about the budgetary disagreements. maybe we won't. But evidence on behalf of Palin will be produced to the panel and a lack of it splashed across the Internet does not mean it doesn't exist.

It may end up being a little of both, but the investigation has to determine which has more merit.

If you want to talk more about it, and apparently you do, let's do in a post in which it's actually the subject.

"Based on what I've learned... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

"Based on what I've learned of McCain in the last few months (again, I urge anyone to read Timberg's two books on him) I wouldn't be surprised if his response was to tell the dirt diggers to shove it...publicly."

The only way to win the game is not to play. I would personally love to see McCain and Palin refuse to respond to anything to do with this topic. When jerkwad interviewers like Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer insist on returning to the topic, give one explanation: "We will not dignify that kind of salacious, irresponsible question with an answer. No answer is the only response you will get. Period. The next question you ask along those lines ends this interview. Am I clear?" And then, when they inevitably ask a related follow-up question, get up and just leave.

Remember how Joseph McCarthy was taken down?

J:"I dunno how yo... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

J:
"I dunno how you somehow got "Kerry is a fool FOR NOT HAVING AN AFFAIR," because it's probably the dumbest possible interpretation. (Oh, that explains it.) "

Dilbert's rules for internet arguments:
5. Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.

No Brain I mean Brian... (Below threshold)
retired military:

No Brain I mean Brian

"Ah, so the talk in the media and in right-wing pep squads of Clinton having an affair began only after the perjury?"

THe perjury and subjuration of perjury wasnt was initially about Paula Jones. Monica's perjury came later. Get your time line straight.

"I didn't make a "Clinton argument", so there is nothing for me to lose. You're remembering things that weren't there."

Funny you just argued for it. Besides every liberal who is screaming about this SUPPOSED UNPROVEN ACCUSATION ( I mean hell with Bill we had a stained dress and you guys still denied it) And You umm still lost.

"Really? Drudge and Rush were all over it, (kerry affair) "

I havent forgotten anything. I cant forget something I didnt know. As I said. I dont know anything about it, I dont remember reading anything or hearing anything about it so I wont comment on it. You should try not commenting on things you know nothing of. Oh wait that means you wouldnt post at all.

"If you're suggesting that that was the reason for the condemnation from the right, that's bullshit. The salivation over Edwards having an affair began with "an unknown woman"."

Umm DURING A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN and LYING TO THE PRESS ABOUT IT. Gee those 2 little facts have NOTHING TO DO WITH IT CORRECT? IDIOT.

I supposed if Obama was using Crack daily TODAY THEN YOU FEEL THAT SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS CAMPAIGN EITHER RIGHT???

Any affair of Palin's IF THERE WAS AN AFFAIR and that is a BIG IF took place years ago and has NOTHING TO DO WITH CURRENT AFFAIRS. EDWARDS HAD TO DO WITH CURRENT AFFAIRS AS HE IS STILL PROMINENT POLITICIAN WHO WAS BEING CONSIDERED FOR VP and the affair business is still CURRENT since he may have broken the laws by using campaign funds..

I KNOW IT IS HARD BUT TRY TO KEEP UP.

Similariy CLINTON's AFFAIR WITH MONICA WAS DURING HIS WHITE HOUSE DAYS. And Paula Jones accusations had to do with COMMISSION OF A CRIME!!!! I know these things dont matter to democrats when it is about democrats but matters if something happened 30 years ago to a republican.

"Again, bullshit. You're using 20/20 hindsight. Edwards was hounded with rumors of an affair through the campaign."

Umm RUMORS THAT WERE PROVEN TO BE TRUE. AND AGAIN YOU EVEN MENTIONED THROUGH THE CAMPAIGN.
" (Let's ignore the "I knew he was lying" crowd and just stick to the facts, shall we?) "

Umm facts those are those things the you make up as you go along right>

"So say what you want about him now, but you can't go back in time and claim that the right's problem with him back during the 2004 campaign was just that he was lying about it."

WAS HE RUNNING FOR OFFICE AT THE TIME ??? YES

How DENSE AND STUPID CAN YOU BE?? Oh wait dont answer that you are a democrat. I dont have all day.

"As noted previously, your knowledge is faulty."

Okay mind linking it other than daily kos? Hey I dont mind being shown FACTS.

"
No, it's been asked and answered. But how can you declare that someone hasn't lied unless you know the actual truth? "
Okay again. POint me to the link.

"Many claimed Kerry was lying, and they were wrong."

And I have no problem saying they were wrong if that is the case.


"Many claimed Edwards was lying, and they were right. Both conclusions were arrived at after the denials."

Not true but then again selective "facts" are a democrat's forte.

"You had no problem with those who thought Edwards was lying and pursued the story until they found the truth, "

If Palin was having an affiar NOW I would have no problem with them doing the same to HER. That doesnt appear to be the case. Of course you dont care since time has to be specific for Edwards but not for Palin. Double standard MUCH.


"so why do you have any problem with those who think Palin is lying and pursue the story until they find the truth?"

Again TIME FRAME. IF it was CURRENT (as EDWARDS is ) then FINE. If not then it doesnt matter.

" Even recently, Wizbang posters were demanding that the MSM put more effort into Edwards allegations, so why not Palin's?:

Question asked, answered numerous times.

"Dismissed earlier as irrelevant."

The only thing that is irrelevant is your portrayal of events"


"Ah, the new McCain "family values" platform."

Umm No. My feelings. I could care less about McCain and have stated on this blog that the best thing he can do for the republican party is have a heart attack. You must have missed the memo along with all the above points I have made.

"I admit that your revisionist "itsy bitsy details" escaped me. Though the only froth was around your muddled representation of actual events."


You have me confused with you and other democrat losers who post here.

BTW funny how the "rumors a... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW funny how the "rumors about Edwards" wasnt even printed in the MSM until after confirmation via a baby, but the rumnors show up daily in the MSM with no proof whatso ever.

Double standard meet the democratic party. Oh wait I forgot you guys are old friends.

RM, you have a problem with... (Below threshold)
Brian:

RM, you have a problem with the space-time continuum. Your whole argument is based on the assertion that since we found out TODAY that something Edwards said FOUR YEARS AGO was a lie, that proves that people were upset with him FOUR YEARS AGO for lying.

Absurd.

BrianYou seem to h... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Brian

You seem to have a problem with the liberal reality time continium. Of course most liberals do.

a. The baby was just born so therefore while Edwards was actively campaigning for President and or VP if he didnt get the top slot.

That is an indisuputable fact.

b. He was asked while campaigning about the affair and and he lied.

That is an indisuputable fact.

c. THe MSM wouldnt touch the story until well after proof of said affair shows up.

That is an indisuputable fact.

d. If Palin had an affair it was over long before she was considered a possibilyty as VP.

That is an indisuputable fact.

e. You havent provided any links or proo f showing where she was asked about the affair.

That is an indisuputable fact. I am not saying they are out there but I havent seen it. Of course I dont pay attention to the BIASED MSM since they are in Obama's pocket.

f. The MSM media is running wild with these rumors along with the lies about book bannings, secessionist clubs, etc.

That is an indisuputable fact. I know this because of the numerous news stories I see linked on this and other pages along with what little news I do listen to.

g. You are an idiot and a dumass.

That is an indisuputable fact. This is proven by your statements, failure to follow reason and just in general. In addition, you try to sidetrack and sidestep things when it doesnt go your way. That makes you a coward in my book along with being an idiot and a dumbass.


Part of the initial post he... (Below threshold)
M:

Part of the initial post here doesn't hold up...

The reason the business partner didn't try to seal the records when Palin ran for governor could be because they didn't exist yet.

According to court records, the divorce was filed for in 2007. Palin was elected governor in 2006.

You still don't get it, do ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You still don't get it, do you? The simple concepts of past, present, and future just don't resonate with you.

b. He was asked while campaigning about the affair and and he lied.
That is an indisuputable fact.

Yes, as we know NOW. NOT THEN! Do you understand that very, very, very simple fact?! Your claim that people were upset with him lying THEN is absurd because IT WASN'T KNOW THAT HE WAS LYING THEN!!!

If you pull out of your driveway and get a flat tire an hour later, do you tell yourself that you never should have left your garage when you had a flat tire?

d. If Palin had an affair it was over long before she was considered a possibilyty as VP.
That is an indisuputable fact.

And you know that "indisuputable fact"... how? Are you really Sara Palin using a pseudonym?

e. You havent provided any links or proo f showing where she was asked about the affair.
That is an indisuputable fact.

Ah, we now know the poor value of your "indisuputable facts", because YES I DID.

f. The MSM media is running wild with these rumors along with the lies about book bannings, secessionist clubs, etc.
That is an indisuputable fact.

She asked the librarian about banning books, and her husband belonged to a secessionist club, and she participated in club events multiple times. You see, THOSE are what indisuputable facts look like. But you're also wildly changing the subject.

g. You are an idiot and a dumass.
That is an indisuputable fact.

Given the accuracy of your other "indisuputable facts", I'm feeling quite comfortable about my intelligence. You, on the other hand, should try to find a Sesame Street episode to help you brush up on the concepts of past, present, and future.

No brainYou really... (Below threshold)
retired military:

No brain

You really are dense arent you?

"Yes, as we know NOW. NOT THEN! Do you understand that very, very, very simple fact?! Your claim that people were upset with him lying THEN is absurd because IT WASN'T KNOW THAT HE WAS LYING THEN!!! "

A. I never claimed that people were upset with him. Maybe on the MSM who got caught with the bias showing after he visits his child at 3 am.

B. He LIED and got caught while he was being possibly vetted as VP choice.

(dont you understand the timeline dumbass are you just that stupid?)

" Your claim that people were upset with him lying THEN is absurd because IT WASN'T KNOW THAT HE WAS LYING THEN!!!
"

A. Again I never claimed anyone was upset with him. In fact you are the only one who is saying folks are upset with him.

In fact I SAID
"Edwards and Kerry - I dont remember anything about Kerry having an affair so I wont comment on it. Edwards was having an affair with a SUBORDINATE and USED CAMPAIGN FUNDS along with LYING when asked about it the MIDDLE OF A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. Plus the PRESS TOTALLY IGNORED IT WHILE PANTING LIKE DOGS IN HEAT OVER THIS.
"

ONCE AGAIN I KNOW IT IS HARD BUT TRY TO KEEP UP.

"And you know that "indisuputable fact"... how? Are you really Sara Palin using a pseudonym? "

Well DUMBASS lets go by the RUMORS that the PRESS are going by. Rumors which we now KNOW are FALSE. Anything that came up we over with by umm 2007 at the latest. Again at least 8 months before she was even mentioned as a VP candidate (except for on a few sites).

I mean you liberals are setting the standard all I am trying to do is provide enlightenment on the BULLSHIT that your left leaning news media calls reporting.

"Ah, we now know the poor value of your "indisuputable facts", because YES I DID.

"

Umm my facts are still indisuputable as the link you have merely mentions that the rumors of an affair are false. There was no statement which in the news story by Palin where she denied or answered anything. Only someone who was on McCain staff was asked and it is now pretty much proven that he was correct when he said the allegations were false.

TRY TO KEEP UP.

Bill CLINTON WAS ASKED DIRECLTY ABOUT AN AFFAIR WHILE HE WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. - HE LIED.

JOHN EDWARDS WAS ASKED DIRECLTY ABOUT AN AFFAIR WHILE HE WAS RUNNING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE - HE LIED.

I know it pains you to admit it but again YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU CANT EVEN READ YOUR OWN SOURCES!!!!

"She asked the librarian about banning books, and her husband belonged to a secessionist club, and she participated in club events multiple times. You see, THOSE are what indisuputable facts look like. But you're also wildly changing the subject."

AGAIN A LIBERALS LOOKING OVER OF INCONVENIENT IRREFUTALBE FACTS.

She asked a librarian about banning books BUT
a. She never provided a list of the books to be banned nor did she persue the matter.

That is STRIKE 1

"her husband belonged to a secessionist club, "
True but she never belonged to it which is what the RUMORS were.

THAT IS STRIKE 2.

SWING BATTER BATTER SWING

"she participated in club events multiple times."
Participated HOW? Did she set the agenda, make speeches, go there to talk to friends, gone there to spend an evening with her husband, gone there on official mayorial duties. DId Michelle go to a crack house with Obama when he was doing cocaine? You know since we are talking about husband wife things.

Try looking here

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2008/09/not-a-radical-s.html
and here
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html
"Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say Palin Was a Member in 90s; McCain Camp and Alaska Division of Elections Deny Charge*"

Also Obama is from Hawaii. HAving served there for 4 years I know that there is a secessionist movement there as well. Why isnt the press asking those folks if Obama was invovled in it?> Oh wait he is a demorat.

So here we have controversy on her role at all. All you have is accussations. What was that that you said?
Oh yeah
"And you know that "indisuputable fact"... how? Are you really Sara Palin using a pseudonym?"

THere's the pitch. He swings and STRIKE 3 YOU ARE OUT.


" I'm feeling quite comfortable about my intelligence. You, on the other hand, should try to find a Sesame Street episode to help you brush up on the concepts of past, present, and future.
"
Yep your intelligence factor = DUMBASS as has been proven several times now.

Also you mean the sesame street on PBS that is funded by govt tax payers and has quite a liberal tilt to it? That PBS?? See now we know why you know part of the problem. You are watching Bert and Ernie. And even though it is somewhat educational you have to stop depending on them for your political choices. Step away from your liberal media and walk outside and take a look at the REAL WORLD. PS. Big Bird is really someone in a Bird costume. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Your guy cant even produce a birth certificate without it being challenged by a fellow democrat and decried as a fake by 3 document experts.

ALso No brain are you marri... (Below threshold)
retired military:

ALso No brain are you married (I hope not for whoevers sake - if so give me your address and I willsend your wife a sympathy card)

My wife has gone to several military functions with me. However, she wasnt in the military.

My wife has gone to a couple of sporting events with me. That doesnt mean that she liked them.

I have gone to several social events with my wife. That isnt to say that I had a grand ole time there.

Do yourself a favor, turn off sesame street and maybe you will meet someone and you can do these things too to see how the real world works.

Retired military is panic... (Below threshold)
Mary Dinan:

Retired military is panicky. Read some other publication than this rag and find out facts. Its only a matter of time until all of the Gov's lies and smoke screens are revealed. Then, Mr. retired military, come back with your opinion, which is written like War and Peace (way to long). Yours is a typical neo-con spew. Smears: ask the smear king, Mr. Karl Rove. He is the master of the republican smut and smear machine. As I said, read more than conservative rags if you have the courage.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy