Palin Dodges Question About Indicted Alaskan Senator

At a campaign stop this weekend in an Albuquerque, N.M., restaurant, John McCain and Sarah Palin had the misfortune of running into a pesky voter, as AmericaBlog relates:

McCain worked his way up to me and Cat and as I shook his hand, I asked, "Sir, I respect your service but, why were you against the GI bill?" Senator McCain, paused, he looked a bit surprised at the question and then he said, "Nice to meet you." I repeated the question and he repeated his non-answer. He quickly worked his way down the line. So much for straight-talk! ...

Sarah Palin was next! I couldn't resist trying for a better photo. It is still blurry, but talk about a close encounter.

Sarah first looked at Caterina said hello, and I shook her hand. I asked, "Are [you] supporting Ted Stevens this year?" She replied, "He's under indictment you know ... his trial is in September." I replied, "But are you voting for him?" She walked away without answering.

The Ted Stevens question is a really good one. Palin claims to have stood up to Republican corruption in her state, and Stevens is the worst of the bunch. He's running for the Senate while under federal indictment for failing to report $250,000 in home repairs and gifts from an oil pipeline construction company.

Contrary to her image, Palin's closely affiliated with Stevens, the first sitting U.S. senator to face criminal charges in 15 years. She served as directory of his 527 group Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service from its founding in 2003 through 2005, appeared with him in a campaign commercial during her gubernatorial run, and was a supporter of his Bridge to Nowhere project -- which she repeatedly lies about today in speeches and ads.

It's interesting that she won't tell people whether she's voting for him this November, even though he's in the race of his life against Democratic challenger Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage.

So Palin's choice is to back her fellow Republican, as she's done for years, or throw him under the bus and help Democrats get closer to that 60-seat majority in the Senate.

Comments

Here is the "question", "... Are [you] supporting Ted Stevens this year?"

Palin replied, "He's under indictment you know ... his trial is in September."

The "question" was answered straightforwadly but it wasn't the right one! So, the partisan intent to dehumanize by association with "evil" tried again!

"But are you voting for him?"

Will Pelosi vote for Feinstein and her corruption in efforts to gain untold millions in contracts for her husband's companies?

How about the mayor of New Orleans? Will he vote for Jefferson and his already proven corruption in taking bribes for votes ... but still remains unendicted and voting for his bribers in the Senate???

How about those VOTES, you dehumanizing, partisan liars of the Progressive neo-communist movement?

Rogers says, "... and was a supporter of his Bridge to Nowhere project -- which she repeatedly lies about today in speeches and ads."

It is an education in subtle propaganda to read this and its effectiveness in convincing the responses of heuristic partisanship. For instance another example in this MSNBC article, Titled: She's touted her opposition to pork projects, but initially welcomed funds

Quote by author/journalist: "Gov. Sarah Palin was for the so-called infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it, a change of position the GOP vice presidential running mate conveniently ignored Saturday when she bragged about telling Congress "thanks but no thanks" to the pork barrel project."

They support the criticism of Palin by stating, "Political flip-flops are a mainstay of presidential politics. One of the most famous examples is John Kerry's explanation for opposing and then favoring an $87 billion Iraq funding bill during the 2004 presidential campaign. 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion,' he said, 'before I voted against it.'"

Of course, the criticism is putatively for a supposed hypocrisy in decision making, but ignores that the fluid nature of reality often requires a re-evaluation of strategy in consideration of reality -- making the (hopefully) right decision for the strategy of the moment. Kerry wants to end support for the war, in order to promote party unity, when he isn't directly responsible for the defense of the nation, but when he enters the national arena and MUST show his non-partisan sense responsibily for the actual defense of the nation, he must convince the majority. That both parties conduct the same propaganda efforts completely avoids the reality of which party supports nation philosophically as a constant of their platform ... and highlights that it is convenience which drives Progressives, and not any real philosophy or moral stance ... not even patriotism.

Indeed, when Palin was running for governor, she was ignorant of the specific budgetary responsibilities Alaska would be have in this effort to improve Ketchikan, and a would-be suburb that is defeated by a stretch of ocean; making it as remote as Manhattan was when bridges were less expensive and not something to lie about for politics. Imagine all the remote communities which wouldn't exist if partisanship actually did run this nation's bridge building infrastructures???

Four months later, and after assuming the responsibility for defining Alaska's budget, she was against the bridge. It was only 4 months after her quoted support, but the Leftist Progressive liars of the Democrat party try and convince everyone that it was for becoming vice-president that she changed her mind! You lazy liars are literally incapable of researching this issue on your own!

Journalist? A braying donkey's culo exhaust ... here and the MSNBC/Progressive complex ...

I look forward to Rogers' insightful peeks into Obama's life any day now, not to mention Biden's.

I totally agree with Tadowe.

I totally disagree with Radowe.

"I totally disagree with Radowe."

I had a bet with myself that someone would fail to recongnize the sarcasm of RA's (get a clue) sarcasm.

I won. What a victory, huh?

Why don't both of you vote for my on Urbandictionary.com

Seriously, vote for your the sake of your angst; relieve the neurtotic tension, alreay ...

I agree completely with Vadowe

Add a Comment

These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. A comment may not include more than three links. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).