Continuing in the tawdry tradition of Dan Rather, “60 Minutes” will air a hopelessly biased hit piece on Sarah Palin. The centerpiece of this attack will be an interview with Steve Schmidt.
Schmidt, you will recall, is the incompetent buffoon who ran the McCain campaign into the ground. In the following clip, he accuses Palin of being unequal to the task of debating Joe Biden:
A big hole in Uncle Fester’s tale is that Palin’s performance in the debate was spectacular. She wiped the floor with Biden, as this Frank Luntz focus group confirmed right after it happened:
The “Biden won” meme was written by the media before the debate happened. No matter how many stupid or dishonest things he said, and he told 14 major whoppers, they were determined to pronounce him the “winner” of that VP debate.
Steve Schmidt is obviously trying to blame Palin for an election debacle that he himself orchestrated. And “60 Minutes,” with its well-deserved reputation for incredibly dishonest reporting, is more than happy to aid and abet his slimy revisionism.
Meanwhile, the Sarahphobes are squealing with joy about the ”60 Minutes” hit piece. Indeed, it has inspired them to rummage through her personal life (for the ten-thousandth time), looking for anything (anything!) to slow down her momentum.
Comments 9
The “intellectual elites” at 60 Minutes can’t wrap their minds around the fact that Palin has something their buddy Barry Obama lacks. Integrity.
Can’t wait for their “blockbuster” analysis why Barry won’t let the health care wrap up be put on C-SPAN. But I’m not holding my breath.
60 Minutes - still water carrier for the DNC.
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 12:56 pm ¶On the issue of integrity (adherence to moral and ethical principles; honesty) with Sarah Palin, I get stuck on this, from the “Troopergate” follow-up:
- Commission report:
““For the reasons explained in section IV of the report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.11(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.”
- Ms. Palin (during a joint phone interview including Sarah Palin, Meg Stapleton, the Anchorage Daily News, and local TV stations KTVA, and KTUU):
“Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that.”
“So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all.”
I know it wasn’t criminal law, but it was certainly a stated ethical standard. The commission found that the ethical standard was not adhered to (strike one against integrity), Ms. Palin lied, stating the opposite repeatedly (strike two), and as far as I am aware, Ms. Palin has never corrected this lie, always claiming when asked that she was found not to have committed wrongdoing (strike three).
I would have no problem if she said she committed no wrongdoing and attempted to argue against the points of the commission report. My problem is that she only says that the commission found that she committed no wrongdoing, negating the content of the report completely, and thus requiring no further explanation from Ms. Palin.
I am not posting this here to incite rioting or as a “Sarahphobic” troll. I am interested in knowing if I am missing something that keeps me from questioning Ms. Palin’s integrity in the sequence of events listed above. If not, I am also interested in knowing if this sequence of events makes long-term supporters of Ms. Palin question her integrity. Thank you for your time in reading and consideration in responding, and take care.
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 2:23 pm ¶You think Palin has integrity? Step away from the bong. A person with integrity wouldn’t be claiming there are death panels even though she could never show in any legislation the existence of death panels.
She has a very casual relationship with the truth. She knew Obama wasn’t “palling around” with Bill Ayres, but she flogged that story over and over again.
she claimed that McCain made her pay for her own vetting. That was not true.
She said she opposed aerial wolf hunts, but she in fact, support them.
She misrepresented Reagan’s tax policies, and claimed the recession during Reagan’s year was worse than this one.
She lied about cap and trade, saying the poor would be hurt.
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 2:30 pm ¶I watched the Palin-Biden debate. She did less spectacularly badly than some expected but there is no way one cans say she “won”. He treated her like a gentleman.
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 3:19 pm ¶She got more publicity because she winked so often, but she did not, by anyone’s estimation, win on points. You’re just rewriting history. Sarah Palin lost the election for McCain. And She lost the election for herself. That’s why she is a private citizen who holds no public office. Same as you and me and Bono and Rush Limbaugh and Carrie Prejean.
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 3:59 pm ¶She assented.. she agreed.. she said.. “I think that’s right.”
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 3:59 pm ¶RJS, let’s talk a little about the “investigation”:
After making the gratuitous and unsupported comment you quote, the Branchflower report finally gets around the actual law and says:
“Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority.”
And if you want to see more evidence that this was a put-up job, meet the investigators:
The man overseeing the “investigation,” Sen. Hollis French, is the bald guy near the back.
When fair-minded people pointed out that he was a shill, the Alaska Legislative Council ignored them. Why? Because the guy who runs that august body is state Senator Elton, the tall bearded guy on the far left (ahem) of the photo.
Any doubts about the objectivity of these hacks, RJS?
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 5:10 pm ¶Memo to Catron,
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 6:43 pm ¶You are not being very clear and concise with WHAT you are TRYING to insinuate but let me take a guess and presume that your point was Hollis French was a Democrat so this was somehow biased in their finding. Yes… do LOOK at that picture and find out the names of THOSE people. ALL of them. There were ” 10 ” Republicans in that Investigation and only 4 Democrats.
Catron, I appreciate your explanation of some of the possible motivations of people involved in the Branchflower report, and I agree that the report must be considered very critically since there were political implications of the timing and content of the report. Furthermore, as I said in my original post, I know that there was no finding of any legal wrongdoing. Nevertheless, I am most interested in Ms. Palin’s interpretaion and public discussions of the report.
The report’s finding of her violating the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act is opposed by Ms. Palin’s repeated statements that the report clears her of any ethical wrongdoing. I am intrigued (and disappointed) that she refuses to publicly acknowledge that the report says she did not act ethically in the “Troopergate” matter (even if she is disputing the contents or creation of the report). I am alarmed that she holds up the report as proof that an independent body confirms that she committed absolutely no ethical misconduct in this matter. It is this contradiction that the 60 Minutes piece touches on, and it is this contradiction that makes me question Ms. Palin’s integrity.
I am writing about this here as someone who is a fan of some of Ms. Palin’s ideas but is overall skeptical of her holding high political office because of this and other similar contradictions that I have encountered. I want to know if there are some details to this contradiction that I am misunderstanding or overlooking. Also, if I am not overlooking anything, I want to know if long-time supporters of Ms. Palin have any concerns about her integrity based on this matter. Thank you for your time in reading and consideration in responding, and take care.
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 11:51 pm ¶Post a Comment