Palin’s lawyer: She needs a break after 2 1/2 years of solid duty

In  an effort to still trouble waters, Thomas Van Flein, Palin’s lawyer made a statement to clarify Palin’s resignation ramblings.  As I read the article chronicling the lawyers comments I  was shocked that a lawyer could make should stunningly stupid comments.  Probably the most striking comment was the statement that  the governor needed a break after being on duty for two and a half years.  What?  This is a woman who was running for the second highest office in the land and she can’t handle 2 1/2 years on duty as governor?   Oh my gosh….2 1/2 YEARS. Imagine that.  A 4 year term as president of the United States is most certainly then beyond Sarah Palin’s capabilities.

The lawyer also said David Letterman’s jokes “demonstrated to her that there’s some sort of disconnect here.”  Whatever that means.  Seriously, part of her decision to quit was because of tasteless jokes from a comedian known for tasteless jokes?  Isn’t this the same woman who criticized Clinton for her handling of the press.  I suppose it was fine for a conservative commentator to attack Hillary Clinton by accusing her  of “pimping out Chelsea”…….that wasn’t the least insulting to Chelsea was it?

Palin said “Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it. You gotta plow through that. You have to know what you’re getting into — which, I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton…..” VIDEO

With all due respect, Sarah, you’re an idiot.

She continued to ramble about any kind of perceived whine not helping women in politics.  She even had the audacity to tell Hillary Clinton to “work harder”.  Excuse me you bumbling twit, you could only  dream of having the work ethic and intelligence of Hillary Clinton.  Talk about not helping women in politics.  Palin’s statement on resigning was a lesson in hysterical incoherency and an embarrassment to women in politics everywhere.  Her running argument with Levi Johnston was fodder for a Jerry Springer show and comedians and she then wonders why she is made the butt of jokes?

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) — No legal “bombshell” or personal scandal lies behind Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s resignation, but off-color jokes by talk-show host David Letterman contributed to her decision to step down, Palin’s attorney said Monday.

Sarah Palin’s attorney said there is no legal reason that compelled her to resign as governor.

Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008, abruptly announced Friday that she would leave office in late July. The decision to resign a year and a half before her term ends, and her rambling, often-disjointed resignation speech, have fueled days of debate among political analysts.

But Thomas Van Flein, Palin’s personal lawyer, said no surprises await. The governor needed a break after being “on duty now for two and a half years solid,” he said.

“There is no bombshell. There is no shoe to drop. There are no investigations of any type that I’m aware of — no IRS audit, no federal investigation, no state investigation,” Van Flein told CNN. “There is no legal reason in terms of a legal problem that compelled the governor to resign.”

[snip]

Despite leaving office about two-thirds of the way through her term, Palin “is not a quitter,” Van Flein said. He added that she “already accomplished her major goals,” including winning legislative approval for a massive natural gas pipeline. SOURCE

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, step away from the microphone – the level of stupid is overwhelming.

Naturally, skeptical observers have wondered how Palin would handle being president if some ethics complaints are enough to make her unable to run a state. Palin’s answer: if she was president, the department of law would protect her. SOURCE

Okay, then…..nice to know we have a  department of law. Palin, like Sanford, doesn’t know when to cut her losses and continues to try to defend the indefensible.   We get it, she quit. We get it, she thinks she’s a victim of the press. We get it that 2 1/2 years on duty was just too much for her. What she doesn’t get is that it’s time for her to show some maturity and dignity and just walk away from the spotlight…..bless her heart.  (If you’re a southerner you’ll get it.)

PS….the ultimate irony is Palin followers trying to get David Letterman fired.  His ratings went up and Sarah quit.

Here is the video mentioned above:

This entry was posted in Politics, video. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to Palin’s lawyer: She needs a break after 2 1/2 years of solid duty

  1. 2fewfactsaround says:

    Sage, thank you for stating the obvious: Palin is such a loser. She shows the same level of mental ability and breadth of knowledge as one of those dead fish she mentioned as she emitted her verbal diarrhea last Friday.

    And you’re right about how embarrassing she is for the many competent women candidates and office-holders in this country and elsewhere. It’s women like her that keep those stereotypes alive about mentally unstable women going through menopause.

  2. Wizcon says:

    I think the Dept of Law statement is my new favorite.

    Sage Reply:

    One of the late night comedians last night said that when Obama was asked about how he liked Alaska he said “it’s great, I can see Sarah Palin’s house from here.”

    Cracked me up.

  3. DKJamal says:

    I like governor Palin and do not agree with the vitriol expressed her. I believe she quit to focus on her large family and to protect them (and herself) from the vicious attacks she has faced in the past ten months, attacks the level, concentration, and intensity of which have are unprecedented in politics. That is sufficient explanation alone, and no one could begrudge her for that.

    However, the more the people around her explain, the worse it gets. Hillary has faced attacks for almost twenty years and she hung in there. It shows Sarah is no Hillary (yet). Sarah and her handlers should stop explaining and let the dead dog lie. Also, Sarah should never utter any criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton ever again.

    Sage Reply:

    I don’t agree that the attacks are unprecedented. If you want to see unprecedented attacks look back at the one’s made on Hillary, Bill and Chelsea Clinton.

    I don’t like Palin. I think she is an attention seeking twit whose little cutesy act has gotten her what she wants. Sarah will NEVER have the intelligence and abilities that Hillary Clinton has.

  4. AliSilver says:

    Sigh……..

    AliSilver Reply:

    I have to qualify this SIGH.. .it is not a sigh of boredom, sorry if it looked that way. It was a sigh of ”i just dont know what to say” but I figured it out right after :P

  5. AliSilver says:

    Ok, again forgive me since I don’t follow Palin. BUt clearly that is what’s dominating the talk these days ! So,,, you’ve mentioned several times what she’s said in ATTACKS against all Clintons. So exactly what are they? Because I just don’t know them…sry.

    Sage Reply:

    No, I wasn’t referring to attacks against anyone but Hillary that came from Palin. The others were general attacks made by the media. What I was referring to is any attacks against Palin certainly weren’t unique or unprecedented.

  6. AliSilver says:

    Also, I watched the little video clip above and just don’t see what is so offensive…….. So I’m hoping there is more to it than that clip. Also,,,, I just don’t see what makes Hillary so intelligent and ability filled….. I just guess I don’t really get the fascination with either of these women, LOL !

    Sage Reply:

    What’s offensive is the hypocrisy in calling Hillary Clinton out for whining when Sarah has been whining on the news for months. It was also offensive for her to suggest Hillary just work harder when Sarah’s own answer to attacks is to QUIT.

    Even Republican Senators said Hillary was the hardest working Senator they had seen and they admire and respect her intelligence. She has a firm grasp of the facts on issues as she demonstrated in the primary debates.

    B Reply:

    Something about Hillary scares me, Sage…I just can’t seem to like her. I’m not a fan of Palin either, but I don’t think it’s fair for the liberals to use her as her punching bag. As far as Hillary’s intelligence goes…she is on Obama’s side afterall and to me that is just plain stupid.

    Sage Reply:

    It has nothing to do with like, it has to do with qualifications and abilities. Of course she’s on Obama’s “side”….she’s a Democrat. What side did you expect her to take?

    Sarah puts herself in front of the camera every chance she gets and with that comes criticism. That’s the way it is.

  7. AliSilver says:

    She said hillary should be careful of anything that can be “PERCIEVED” as whiny! She did not say she was whining. She was saying when the media hears it and it’s even anywhere close to whiny, that is what they ‘media’ will make of it. I viewed the interview more like ‘constructive criticism’,,, like for folks liek palin or hill to make it in politics they’ve gotta be more careful with waht they say because it will be PERCIEVED differently than what men say.

    Sage Reply:

    Now come on, she said Hillary shouldn’t mention “it” and should just work harder and obviously was talking about Hillary as being whiny. Otherwise why mention it?

  8. AliSilver says:

    Uh…..I think she mentioned it because she was asked by the interviewer,,,

    Sage Reply:

    She used the word whiny, not the interviewer. The interviewer just asked her what she thought.

  9. skyagunsta says:

    Does anyone remember 1972,the 1972 Democratic Convention and Thomas Eagleton of Missouri? Sara Palin’s word salad of last Friday, her lawyer’s statement that she needs a break after 2 1/2 years of solid duty, all make me wonder if Sara Palin is our current Thomas Eagleton. I think she probably is.

    Sage Reply:

    I can’t say I remember Eagleton.

    Wizcon Reply:

    Eagleton was on Thorazine. If I remember right its used for everything from Schizophrenia to bipolar disorders.
    I sold my McGovern Eagleton campaign button for $100 about 10 yrs ago. It was free to me.

    skyagunsta Reply:

    “The 1972 Democratic National Convention was the presidential nominating convention of the Democratic Party for the 1972 presidential election. It was held at Miami Beach Convention Center in Miami Beach, Florida on July 10-13, 1972.

    It nominated Senator George McGovern of South Dakota for President and Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri for Vice President. (Eagleton later withdrew from the race when it was disclosed that he had undergone mental health treatment, including electroshock therapy, in the past, and he was replaced on the ballot by Sargent Shriver.”

    From Wikipedia’s entry of the 1972 convention and Eagleton.

    I do remember the convention. I lived in Nashville then. Shirley Chilshom was running for President too … and I supported her (which sent my fahter’s third wife through the roof). I was glued to the television every night … watching the convention and the speakers on the floor. Barbara Jordan, was, I think one such speaker and a couple of others that I absolutely went crazy with support for. I remember Eagleton sweating very profusely on the floor of that convention and I remember people commenting on how, just how much he really sweat on the floor of that convention. They said it did not seem normal. It was later revealed about his mental health condition and he had to withdraw his name from it.
    In time people have either forgotten him, or have never heard of him. I wonder if one day Sara Palin will be just as forgotten, or as obscure as Eagleton became after 1972.

  10. Wizcon says:

    Its that old seed planting thing. The critics pick right up on it and it snowballs. Look at Palins domestice terrorist comment about Ayers. Pretty soon it was “paling around with terrorists” to Obama is a terrorist. Remember the game of Telephone? All that needed to be done is to play on peoples fear and prjudices with one key word and its off to the races.

    Desert Sage Reply:

    1) Ayers is an admitted terrorist. He doesn’t like to use the word when describing himself, but that was his objective by definition.

    2) Obama is an admitted associate of Bill Ayers. He doesn’t like to claim much of the association, but it’s a fact.

    The seeds were planted by their own actions and associations. They’re responsible for creating their own fear and prejudice.

    Sage Reply:

    Obama was part of an organization at the same time as Ayers.

    The group was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, started by a $49 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation, which was established by the publisher Walter Annenberg, a prominent Republican whose widow, Leonore, is a contributor to the McCain campaign.SOURCE

    He is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.SOURCE

    That makes lots of people his associates.

    Wizcon Reply:

    I once worked closely with a woman at a county hospital. I ran central supply, she was a volunteer co ordinator. The patients were all mentally ill. Together we opened a patient store and taught some of them how to work in retail. Together we also worked on various projects in the community. We also socialized.
    Then she was arrested and convicted for the murder of her former Pastors wife. Pastor was arrested and convicted as well. Seems the 2 were lovers.
    Did I aid and abet? Am I a murderer to because I still respect the work she did after the the murder? Even though I abhor what she did to the wife and the whole selfish frame of mind that led up to it, it does not lessen what she did with her life before getting involved with that Pastor and after she came to our community.
    Associations are not all encompassing. You are not embrassing the whole of others beliefs and past actions. With your logic there are probably a lot of people you associate now that you shouldn’t. It might rub off on you if your picture is taken talking to them.

    timesr Reply:

    “1) Ayers is an admitted terrorist. He doesn’t like to use the word when describing himself, but that was his objective by definition.”

    Not to minimize what Ayers did, however he never targeted human beings, his terrorists attacks were on property, and that was a long time ago.

    “2) Obama is an admitted associate of Bill Ayers. He doesn’t like to claim much of the association, but it’s a fact.”

    Obama is acquainted with the middle class, professor, senior citizen Ayers, he never knew the young radical Ayers. When people link Obama to Ayers, its the image of the young radical Ayers they want to conger up.

    Desert Sage Reply:

    “… however he never targeted human beings”

    You must be joking… does this really matter?

    Young or old, Bill Ayers is still a radical. His ideology hasn’t changed, only his tactics.

    Desert Sage Reply:

    Wizcon, Ayers already had an unrepentent past when Obama served on the board of the Annenberg Challenge. A “pre-existing” condition per say, that you did not have the advantage to know of your friend. If you had a priori knowledge of her murderous impropriety I would hope your situation may have been quite different.

    Receiving a donation from the Annenberg’s widow is an indirect form of association. There’s not much you can do when someone donates money to your campaign. McCain/Annenberg, Clinton/Hsu…

    Serving on several boards with someone accused and prosecuted for a terrorism charge, and being their focus of campaign fundraiser(s) in their home, is a direct form of association and much more intimate. If you were in that position, would you not question why a domestic terroist is on a board of directors, or hosting fundraisers in my name?

    Ayers hasn’t changed his spots (“small ‘c’ communist”), he’s merely changed his tactics (Education), no matter how “distinguished” he becomes.

    Sage Reply:

    I’ll give you credit, you did a pretty good job of changing the topic. The topic is Sarah Palin’s stupidity. Whatever Obama did or didn’t do has not relevance to her stupidity.

    Palin’s comments about Ayers were inflammatory as evidenced by the response of the idiots in the audience when she talked about Ayers. She was inciting people to violence. That was the point. As we know the right has a lot of violent people.

    Wizcon Reply:

    After I had knowledge of he “murderous impropiety” I still respect the work she did with me. What we built together and with others is still going 30 yrs later. It has expanded into community living and working situations for these people in supervised settings. They live in homes and pay rent which goes toward the mortgage on the homes they live in. One home is almost paid for. What she did in one phase of her life does not diminish what she did in another phase.
    “someone accused and prosecuted for a terrorism charge” But not convicted. It was thrown out on a technicallity. Those prosecuting him were so cock sure of his guilt they got cocky and assumed he would be convicted. They did not line thier ducks up properly. We have rules of law and they did not follow them. Had they done so, he would have been convicted most likely and it wouldn’t be a point of conversation. Unless you prefer to throw the rule of law out the window. We already have had countless convictions overturned on those types of technical violations and advanced science such as DNA testing.
    I think it’s ironic that you critisize an otherwise noble contribution to society by the foundation which has improved the lives of countless people in our society (you yourself may have benefitted) because Obama associated with him and countless others on these projects. Mc Cain and Clinton and everyone running for office can refuse donations. But they chose to keep it.
    Given that Obama is an analytical guy, I am sure he knew what Ayers did. He also was aware of what he is now.

    Desert Sage Reply:

    “What she did in one phase of her life does not diminish what she did in another phase.”

    That’s right, it works both ways. On one hand your friend is a glorious example of public duty, on another a simple murderer. You choose to focus on the good, but what one does in any moment of their life good or bad should reflect on their overall character. You go ahead and respect your friend for her contribution to society… I’ll grant you that. But please explain to the victims of her murderous impulse why that good deed morally offsets her evil.

    And Sage you’re right, Wizcon did a good job of changing the subject.

    Sage Reply:

    No, you’re the one that made Ayers the subject.

    Wizcon Reply:

    Desertsage. That is a cheap shot. I am not the one to explain anything to the victims on the evil actions of the perp. My experience was with her doing good as was Obama’s. That does not make us what Ayers and the woman were at their worst. Hate the sin not the sinner.
    “Young or old, Bill Ayers is still a radical. His ideology hasn’t changed, only his tactics.”
    Your objections seem to be your perception of radicals. Not all radicals act out in violence. There are radicals on both poles. Gahndi was a radical as are the likes of Michele Bachman, Martin Luther King, The founders of our Nation. Anyone who deviates from what is considered tradition. Thats where progress stems from. Ayers progressed from where he was and the woman did too. Since they cannot undo what they did then they can act to pay back for what they did.

  11. AliSilver says:

    She said anything that can be percieved as whiny………..
    I think you got such a hate for her, you just love to hate on her even more. Which is fine, if you enjoy it. I don’t care for Palin or Hillary….. I also don’t care if you get SLAMMED by the media and the public when you hold public office OR when you are a movie star/ sports star etc. Privacy is for private people ! :)

    Sage Reply:

    I don’t hate her. I find her an annoyance and a joke.

  12. AliSilver says:

    I’m sorry ,, it’s just funny to me. You hate her as passionately as my mom LOVES her and I find both extremes baffling! That’s all. To me,,, she is almost a non issue. If she’s got a bunch of cheerleaders who hang on her every word,,,,let them if that ‘s what makes their heart warm ! My mom almost threw me out of her house at Christmas,,,, because I voiced some indifference (non-love) toward Palin.

  13. Wizcon says:

    Walk the walk.
    My fear is that, while she may be a great person, she is not articulate and versed enough to take on the responsibilities of a national seat of any kind. She will out do GW on ism’s and be way to reliant on staff to get her through it (ie nixon/macnamara, Bush/Cheney/Rove)I prefer our leaders to stand before the curtain.
    I can’t take her seriously. Hillary I can.

    A post hole digger is a post hole digger. It’s not a PHD or a “fence banger”. While the message might get through as to what she is talking about eventually, she’s to vague. Anyone can get up and speak a message by rote. But the effective ones actually know of what they are talking about. Dept of Law is for Universities. I don’t think even the Alaskan Government has a Dept of Law. They have an Attorney General though.

    Sage Reply:

    It’s interesting how many people forget that she was found guilty of abusing her power.
    REPUBLICAN vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin abused her power as Alaska governor, investigators found yesterday, in another blow to John McCain’s struggling White House bid.SOURCE

    Yet, she thinks the “department of law” should shield her from ethics inquiries. Obviously she shouldn’t be shielded.

  14. Wizcon says:

    If she thinks her remaining time was going to be lame duck because of all the oppositional flack, there is no way she’d handle it at the national level.

  15. ShiningHill says:

    Liberal women attacking one conservative woman… at least we are united in tearing this conservative woman down…

    Sage Reply:

    She doesn’t get a pass just because she has a vagina.

    Wizcon Reply:

    If it makes you feel better, I don’t always like Pelosi. To party line at any expense.

    timesr Reply:

    “If it makes you feel better, I don’t always like Pelosi.”

    Join the club.

  16. AliSilver says:

    I’m not tearing anyone down! As a woman I admire palin AND hill for their “accomplishments”. Tough ladies, both of them. But I am glad they’re not running my governor OR president. I think, as a woman , it’s important to acknowledge they have accomplished MANY things, not necessarily all great thigns or even things I agree with. But that they are playing a man’s game and are succeeding in it is a good thing.. I sure as hell won’t vote for one for president though.
    Some folks here are talking as if they know her.. ( palin) making personal statements about her that I just don’t get. I don’t know if hillary or palin is smart or dumb or anything else. I say anyone who gets themselves eleted to pretty high office,, cannot be stupid..regardless of if you like how they talk or what they say.

    AliSilver Reply:

    lotta grammatical errors above,, i see them,,, i know :(

    Wizcon Reply:

    Move your chair over a bit

    Sage Reply:

    What? You wouldn’t vote for any woman as president? Why the hell not?

    AliSilver Reply:

    If ANYWOMAN is clinton or palin then I guess not. You made quite a mighty huge leap there. But ,,,,whatever

    AliSilver Reply:

    In fact, it almost sounds as if you think I should vote for one of them merely because they have a vagina………. instead of based on their experience or ability.

    Sage Reply:

    Who, me? I don’t think anyone should vote for a woman just because she’s a woman.

    Sage Reply:

    When you said “I sure as hell won’t vote for one for president though” I didn’t get you meant Palin or Clinton. I apologize as I misunderstood what you were saying. The way it was written didn’t clarify “one” as Palin or Clinton.

    timesr Reply:

    Palin was a big fish in a little pond. As of Jul 2008, Alaska’s population was 686,293.

  17. AliSilver says:

    AYE,,, case in point… Martha Stewart. I just dislike the woman. I don’t like the way she talks, don’t like her little toilet paper roll wedding invitation creations and really I don’t like much about her at ALL! However,,, I admire her! She’s carved her out a little niche of society and turned it into a profitable career for herself and a handsome living and made herself a household name. So whether I like her or use her advice or products, I think its very COOL that she did those things…

    Now I feel I’m rambling……sorry if ya’ll heard ramblings :P

    Wizcon Reply:

    But she was tried AND CONVICTED. She went to jail. She is admired for the nifty poncho’s she made in there and ended up making money off on the outside. She’s a domestic financial terrorist.

    We shouldn’t admire her!

    Sage Reply:

    LOL…..good one.

    AliSilver Reply:

    Well personally I didn’t think she was as guilty as all that ! :)

    Wizcon Reply:

    Insider trading? Then its ok that the senators with stocks in the banks we ended up bailing out all sold their shares in unision before they took a hit?

  18. AliSilver says:

    As we know the right has a lot of violent people.
    ………………………………….
    this IS an inflammatory statement!

  19. AliSilver says:

    If Martha Stewart ran,,,Id consider it.. ;) HAHAHA
    SHe’s already got her scandal behind her,,, LOOOL!

  20. AliSilver says:

    AYE!!! I have to change my earlier statement about not voting for either one of them,,, HAHAHAHA…because I in fact , DID vote for Hill in the primary!But I still don’t think she’s qualified. But faced looking at obama, hill or mccain, she was the only LOGICAL choice to me personally. My disdain for mccain is far greater than any uneasiness I have about Hillary. But I did not WANT her to be my president, I just wanted obama or mccain to be my president LESS… So I thought I better clear that Up. So here it is in a nutshell….. of the 4 people in question, obama, mccain, palin and hillary…… mccain clearly has the most EXPERIENCE! But experience alone does not a good candidate make! So I voted against him and against my own party ! In the primary. I am not SO deluded with GOPisms as to just vote for any fool they put before me. They have to EARN my vote witha qualified, experienced and capable person! But as for mccain, experience is NOT enough to counteract all the other things about him I don’t like. Just as Palin and Hill are ladies, but that doesnt’ counteract ALL the other thigns I don’t like about them.
    I felt a very fearful dread this campaign season and it hasn’t gone away and it’s only getting worse. The idea that the govt. now runs the show and is literally laughing in our face while they stick up these JOKES of candidates and ONE of them will win…and there’s not a thing WE the people can do about it except go to the poll and vote for whoever talks the nicest, says the biggest words or spends the most money is sickening. None of them were presidential material . As for me, if i had my preference palin would take the mccain cue and fade into the woodwork as a fun ride that went nowhere and wait for someone else to come up and see what happens next. But I have a feeling it will only get worse…… and that my friends is a couple of RUN ON SENTENCES BACK TO BACK :)

    2fewfactsaround Reply:

    Now I understand your previous comments more, AliSilver. I was (and still am) a Hillary supporter. When she lost the primaries, I eventually came around to voting for Obama, because McCain and Palin are truly frightening, IMO.

    I do not always vote a straight Party line and I certainly don’t vote for women candidates in all cases. For instance, I wish Nancy Pelosi would resign immediately and go fishing with Sarah Palin or take an around-the-world trip by horseback, camel, and canoe.

    At the current moment, the one viable candidate in either Party that I respect on a wide range of subjects and who seems to have the necessary intelligence, gravitas, etc. (I can’t believe I just used the word ‘gravitas’ after my complaints in the past about its overuse) is Colin Powell. And he’s too smart to want the job of President.

    Sage Reply:

    Wow. Palin just doesn’t quit:

    Since announcing that she would resign as governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin (R) has been blaming her decision on the “mainstream media” and political operatives who accused her of “all sorts of frivolous ethics violations.” Ironically, Palin last year criticized Hillary Clinton for complaining about being put under “a sharper microscope,” saying that when there is “any kind of perceived whine” coming from a “woman candidate,” she thinks, “Man that doesn’t do us any good.” Time’s Jay Newton-Small asked Palin about this contradiction in a new interview. Palin replied that she’s totally different than Clinton because the accusations she’s facing are way worse:

    What I said was, it doesn’t do her or anybody else any good to whine about the criticism. And that’s why I’m trying to make it clear that the criticism, I invite that. But freedom of speech and that invitation to constructively criticize a public servant is a lot different than the allowance to lie, to continually falsely accuse a public servant when they have proven over and over again that they have not done what the accuser is saying they did. It doesn’t cost them a dime to continue to accuse. That’s a whole different situation. But that’s why when I talk about the political potshots that I take or my family takes, we can handle that. I can handle that. I expect it. But there has to be opportunity provided for truth to get out there, and truth isn’t getting out there when the political game that’s being played right now is going to continue, and it is. SOURCE

    Wrong again, oh duffus one. What about Whitewater? Vince Foster? How many millions were spent trying to nail the Clintons for those supposed crimes? Just face it, Sarah is a whiner who somehow thinks her situation is just oh so different and her case is just so special. Hillary Clinton faced some of the harshest criticism I’ve ever seen a politician take. Photos of her in a Nazi uniform, all of the attention when Bill screwed up, her daughter being called a dog by Rush Limbaugh, Whitewater, Vince Foster accusations, John McCain making a horrible joke about Chelsea. (Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”)

    Lord, shes’ an annoying little twit.

  21. AliSilver says:

    Well I’ve been thinking of writing this PIECE on party lines and where we , the citizens, stand. I just can’t seem to find the time and I’m afraid it would be like 43 pages LONG! So, I’m trying to spare all of ya’ll. BUT, basically, my thinking is if dems support dems PERIOD and gops support gops PERIOD,, then we will never have a chance to make any progress of any kind. I vote the PERSON, not the party and this last election, I felt I had no choices. I think too much to be a voter, LOL. I dissect candidates until I hate them all. That is actually how I found this blog, was the API story, where I was looking at obama stuff. If you scrutinize any o them enough, you will find none of them are good enough to be president. Then the little guy who is good enough and honest enough can’t make enough money to get his name on the ballot ! :(

    Sage Reply:

    I think a lot of people vote for a platform. The Democratic platform, while still not as liberal as I would like it, better fits my own political beliefs than the Republican platform. I don’t like voting against my values. In this last election though I voted for Nader. I considered the Green Party but Cynthia McKinney rather went over the edge in my opinion.

  22. ShiningHill says:

    Colin Powell supported our President during the election, and now he has turned his back and spit on him… shame!

    Wizcon Reply:

    Powell is a republican that absolutely did not like the republican candidates.
    Powell> ” I think that Sen. Obama brings a fresh set of of eyes, a fresh set of ideas to the table. I think that Sen. McCain, as gifted as he is, is essentially going to execute the Republican agenda, the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda with a new face and with a maverick approach to it. And he’d be quite good at it. But I think we need more than that. I think we need a generational change. And I think Sen. Obama has captured the feelings of the young people of America and is reaching out in a more diverse, inclusive way across our society.”
    He then went on to talk about when he made his decision.
    “And frankly, it was in the period leading up to the conventions, and then the decisions that came out of the conventions, and then just sort of watching the responses of the two individuals on the economic crisis. It gave me an opportunity to evaluate their judgment, to evaluate their way of approaching a problem, to evaluate the steadiness of their actions. And it was at that point that I realized that, to my mind, anyway, that Sen. Obama has demonstrated the kind of calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach to problem-solving that I think we need in this country.”

    timesr Reply:

    “…Sen. Obama has demonstrated the kind of calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach to problem-solving that I think we need in this country.”

    No drama Obama.

    Certainly the president as CEO thing didn’t work out so well, perhaps its time for a president as community organizer.

  23. AliSilver says:

    Shame on which one?

  24. Desert Sage says:

    “I find her an annoyance and a joke.”

    So, if Sarah Palin is so stupid, why waste your vitriolic energy on her? She’s not a threat politically, and the media simply focus on her because it stirs the hive and generates Michael Jackson-like ratings.

    Why not focus support for the intellectual giants we have in congress today, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barney Frank, Al Franken, etc.

    Sarcasm, off.

    Sage Reply:

    Because every time I turn on the damn news they are talking to or about her.

    timesr Reply:

    “So, if Sarah Palin is so stupid, why waste your vitriolic energy on her?”

    I don’t think Sarah Palin is stupid, she’s ignorant.

    Sage Reply:

    And at times willfully ignorant.

    Desert Sage Reply:

    Along with each of the politicians I mentioned. Why focus on Palin? She’s a bit player in comparison.

    Sage Reply:

    Because I felt like it which I believe is my prerogative. Why do you care why?

    timesr Reply:

    Indeed! and haven’t we had enough of that?

    Sage Reply:

    Well, some of us have.

  25. Wizcon says:

    We could sling mud at the politicians from here to the end of time. The point is, is that she is controversial. That will always follow her.
    There’s a whole slew of governors and congressmen from the republican side in the news for transgressions for which attempts were made to impeach Clinton for. Sanders just got a slap on the wrist the other day.

    ShiningHill Reply:

    Republican infidelities and intolerance will eventually bring down their house down in contrast to progressive and inclusive embrace the Democrats have shown people who have alternative life styles, races and genders. Progressive diversity and tolerance will prevail and the old staunch Reagan bigotry and racism is fading fast.

  26. Desert Sage says:

    Reagan bigotry and racism? Site one example.

  27. Wizcon says:

    Lets see…how about his oppositione to the Rumsfield fair housing act in CA. That law does not allow discrimination by landlords. I remember it well as we were freinds with an african family who had a heck of a time finding housing so he could attend the seminary. He was opposed to the Voting Rights Act. He vetoed the civil Rights restoration Act of 1988 but congress over rode him. He told a Georgia audience that Jefferson Davis was a hero of his. He also opposed Martin Luther King Day. He also was opposed to the Voting rights Act because “It was humiliating to the south”

  28. Desert Sage says:

    There were many reasons Reagan, and many others, opposed these examples outside of racism and bigotry.

    In fact there were more Democrats than Republicans that voted against the Voting Rights Act. The 15th Amendment fully protected the rights of minority voters at the federal level, and many bipartisan legislators opposed additional federal measure as an imposition on the states. Reagan’s comment about the humiliation of the South was taken out of context in that the South had long since abandoned their Jim Crow and voting literacy laws. There was no real need outside of political expediency.

    Would you call this a bigot and racist?

    “In the late 1920s, Reagan was unusual in his opposition to racial discrimination. In Dixon, Illinois, the local inn would not allow black people to stay the night. Reagan brought them back to his house, where his mother invited them to sleep and have breakfast the next morning.” Kengor, Paul (2004). God and Ronald Reagan. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. ISBN 006057142X

    Doesn’t sound like a bigot and racist to me…

    And BTW… It’s the Rumford Act.

  29. timesr says:

    “In fact there were more Democrats than Republicans that voted against the Voting Rights Act.”

    Boll weevils was a name applied to conservative Southern Democrats at the time. They were Democrats because they were still po’d at Lincoln; after Johnson’s civil rights legislation, they migrated back to the Republican Party because they were more po’d at Johnson than Lincoln. So when you say that “more Democrats than Republicans that voted against the Voting Rights Act” you are correct and misleading at the same time.

    “The 15th Amendment fully protected the rights of minority voters at the federal level, and many bipartisan legislators opposed additional federal measure as an imposition on the states.”

    Yep, the old “states rights” thing that was code for preventing blacks from exercising their rights as full American citizens.

    “This “act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution” was signed into law 95 years after the amendment was ratified. In those years, African Americans in the South faced tremendous obstacles to voting, including poll taxes, literacy tests, and other bureaucratic restrictions to deny them the right to vote. They also risked harassment, intimidation, economic reprisals, and physical violence when they tried to register or vote. As a result, very few African Americans were registered voters, and they had very little, if any, political power, either locally or nationally.

    In 1964, numerous demonstrations were held, and the considerable violence that erupted brought renewed attention to the issue of voting rights. The murder of voting-rights activists in Mississippi and the attack by state troopers on peaceful marchers in Selma, AL, gained national attention and persuaded President Johnson and Congress to initiate meaningful and effective national voting rights legislation. The combination of public revulsion to the violence and Johnson’s political skills stimulated Congress to pass the voting rights bill on August 5, 1965.”

    http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=100

    Jim Crow was alive and well in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was passed and I was alive to witness both the discrimination and the bills passage.

  30. Desert Sage says:

    So, your still calling Reagan a bigot and racist I presume?

    What do you think of race hustlers like Jesse Jackson, Louis Farakhan, and Al Sharpton?

Comments are closed.