• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Palin and stupid lies...

headscratcher4

Philosopher
headscratcher4
Joined
Apr 14, 2002
Messages
7,776
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5948944&page=1

All politicians seem to do it...tell tales that with just a little bit of investigation prove to be either less than they claim or outright falsehoods. Yet another by Palin who, imo, has a huge propensity for doing it. Does she think no one will check? Or, does she know it doesn't matter...that somehow she will get away with it because belivers don't care and those of us who find her scary and unqualified are too deranged to be effective against her?
 
Hmm. Others will of course be quick to point out that both candidates made several distortions, but this one seems pretty open-and-shut.

I also had thought that her claim was one of the few lucid, concrete, and admirable things she'd said on stage last night. Apparently it was a falsehood. Oh dear.

If there's a silver lining, this legislation seems sure to pass when it's reintroduced, after getting attention on the national stage like this.
 
"JUNEAU - Gov. Sarah Palin's administration signaled support Tuesday (April 1) for the Legislature to order the divestment of Alaska's public funds from Sudan, where thousands of people have died in the Darfur region.

Department of Revenue Commissioner Patrick Galvin endorsed a bill promoting divestment in Sudan at a hearing before the Senate State Affairs Committee."

http://juneauempire.com/stories/040308/reg_264694274.shtml
 
zigaretten said:
"JUNEAU - Gov. Sarah Palin's administration signaled support Tuesday (April 1)
Click to expand...

The quoted article noted that change of support, zigaretten:

"The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination," testified Brian Andrews, Palin's deputy revenue commissioner, before a hearing on the Gara-Lynn Sudan divestment bill in February. Minutes from the meeting are posted online by the legislature.

Gara says the lack of support from Palin's administration helped kill the measure.

"I walked out of that hearing livid," Gara recalled of the February meeting. Because of the Palin administration's opposition to the bill, "We could not get a vote in that committee," he explained. At no point did Palin come out in support of the effort, Gara said.

...Two months later (April), at the end of the legislative session, the administration softened its position. Appearing before a Senate committee which was considering a companion measure to Gara's bill, Palin's Revenue commissioner, Patrick Galvin, stated the administration supported such a measure, though it hoped to amend the bill to allow for investments held indirectly, for example in index funds.

"At the last minute they showed up" and supported the divestment effort, Gara said. But by then the legislative session was almost over, and there wasn't enough time to get it passed.
Click to expand...

Nice try.
 
ETA: Since I took so long composing this, I see that Boloboffin beat me to the point---and made it much more succinctly.

The story in the OP says that when the legislation was first introduced she failed to support it, and her administration spoke against it, effectively killing it. A couple months later, a companion bill was introduced and Palin offered support (indicating she also wanted an amendment to make indirect investments not counted), but it was too late in the legislative session to vote on it.

As R.Mackey points out, when the bill is reintroduced in January, Gov. Palin will no doubt support it (what with it being after the election and her not having to worry about transitioning into the office of V.P.).

However, at the debate she claimed that she supported this bill, but that it hadn't yet passed. Gara, the original sponsor of the bill, contends that it would have passed but for the inaction of Palin and the statement of her people.

Also, the story says that divestment advocates claim there is no need for legislation to divest the funds. (Presumably, that means Gov. Palin could just order the divestment right now if she wanted to.)

So. . . if this is her idea of "supporting" important legislation, and the Bridge to Nowhere is her idea of a project she opposed, she's got one helluva credibility problem.

I really thought this was something that I'd have to admit she did right.
 
Last edited:
For some reason I am reminded of the 2000 election. GW Bush, running on a "compassionate conservatism" platform bragged that as Governor of Texas, he had pushed through a "patients' bill of rights". In fact, he had vetoed it. Even though the legislature was overwhelmingly Republican, they overrode his veto, so it became a law while he was governor, which, under Bush League Rules, means he gets to take credit for it. Little things like this ought to set off alarm bells.
 
zigaretten said:
See straws.................grasp.
Click to expand...

Yeah right.

That Gara, co-author of the Gara-Lynn Sudan divestment bill said:

"I walked out of that hearing livid," Gara recalled of the February meeting. Because of the Palin administration's opposition to the bill, "We could not get a vote in that committee," he explained. At no point did Palin come out in support of the effort, Gara said.
Click to expand...

Is perfectly compatible with Palin's claim that she supported the bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom