I've watched some of my favorite bloggers completely lose their shit over Sarah Palin. Admittedly, some of these people are a little high strung to start with, but they're coughing up every wild, half-baked scenario that comes along: Palin cut money for special needs kids (nope), Palin's daughter had the kid with Down syndrome, not Palin (nope), Palin banned books (nope), Palin was a member of an Alaskan separatist group (nope).
Even the recent rape kit outrage sounds a little weak once you get past the anger. The story is incomplete. The information is lacking and very clearly being spun. It could very easily turn around very suddenly, just like the other controversies over the last two weeks have.
At this point, anything leaked about Sarah Palin has to be considered suspicious. It's been more bullshit than truth so far. This is how it was probably intended.
To quote the good Admiral... It's a trap.
6 comments:
How is the rape kit story "clearly being spun?" The state legislature in Alaska had to pass a law to require police not to charge rape victims for their exams because of one city -- Wasilla. That's not a normal piece of legislation. And they had to pass it so they wouldn't lose their funding under the Violence Against Women Act. Where's the spin?
These aren't "leaks," it's information that people are finding by doing simple searches of news reports about Palin.
I keep seeing fairly reasonable people merrily marching off to the rope factory to hang themselves with the newest bullshit scandal.It literally becomes the problem of the boy crying wolf.
I've thought of long-winded responses, but it comes down to there have been a bunch of false accusations about Palin so far. This one comes out of the blue and it's a story without a beginning or an end --just a curious middle.
It shouldn't be trusted just yet.
Past that, I know better than to try and argue with Raging Red. You're out of my league. So, I say it's smart to wait for a few more facts before getting mad.
I agree that it's wise to wait for all the facts before jumping on the latest rumor, but I'm not sure what is not to be trusted about a totally straightforward news report quoting a few different legitimate sources (including a former governor of Alaska) about the rape kits.
(Not arguing, just talkin'!)
Well... It was Knowles law. The Frontiersman article is the only mention of the thing I could find. Everything else refers to it. I went through The Frontiersman archives, then checked the archives of a paper in Fairbanks. It looked like it should have been a scandal. There should be more, but there wasn't. I thought something might turn up -at least as an issue during her run for the Governor's office. Nothing.
It should have, I would think. It would have been a slam dunk politically speaking unless they couldn't make it stick to her.
Part of the reason it didn't stick might have to do with what her actual powers were as mayor. I looked those up, too. The city council had more power. She could hire and fire employees and sign checks, but she was bound to do the council's bidding. She didn't even have a vote unless it was to settle a tie.
What concerns me is what happens if it turns up in city council minutes she was against the policy, if she raised an objection to it, but couldn't get the council to take an action to change the policy. Then suddenly, she gets to be a heroic reformer being held back by a broken system.
The Frontiersman article mentions Wasilla, but eludes to the practice existing elsewhere. The chief in Wasilla tries to explain his intention wasn't to foist the cost onto victims, but he wanted it to end up as something the perps had to pay for. Even so, it's a pretty impractical thing for him to want to do, but mentioning that sort of changes the tone of what might have been going on. It becomes less about saving a few pennies for the city and more about inadvertently creating a bureaucratic hell in an attempt to squeeze out a little more justice.
Most of the blogs and web things I've read use portions of the article, but leave out the chief's explanation. This is done, I believe, to advance a particular view, not really to get at the truth.
The weird and numerous scandals aren't the thing to worry about with Palin. She's a control freak. She wanted loyalty oaths from the people who worked for her and wanted to control who in her administration spoke with the media. She's very much a friend of big energy. I think she believes in public service, but she really digs the popularity aspect of being mayor, being governor, being vice president. Maybe it's just because she was a beauty queen and that's a stereotype.
Either way, she reminds me of Joe Manchin in all the worst ways -only backed by a much smarter machine.
Here's the proof. Towards the bottom is the Smoking .pdf
I'm with you Bill. People are far too eager to jump the gun on this one. Some might say they're showing their ignorance.
Post a Comment