Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1.    #1  
    This was originally going to be just an ordinary post.

    But given our other recent exchanges regarding McCain, his campaign manager Davis, Bill Clinton, and a slew of others, this seems like a story that can open up a larger and potentially more interesting point of discussion.


    At what point does naked hypocrisy become a disqualifying personal characteristic ?? When does it rise beyond simple personal sanctimony, to become an absolutely disqualifying expression of dishonesty ??

    When candidates repeatedly proclaim something that is factually untrue -- Palin's "opposition" to the Bridge to Nowhere, McCain's pretending to be a Teddy Roosevelt proponent of regulation and in support of the common man and against big business -- are these on their face acts that are dishonest ?? Are they just normal "politics" ?? And as Ben would surely say: "they all do it -- even Obama !!"

    How is this kind of dishonesty different and not worse than the cable brewhaha over Hillary's Bosnian fantasy in the Spring (where she embellished her travels to a then peaceful Bosnia to include ducking from snipers) ??

    Palin has been getting a lot of mileage from her gender -- as well as her pretense of morality and probity.

    There is this unspoken sense that as a mother, a wife, a woman -- that she has particular empathy on issues that affect women in general. That she therefore is able to connect on a special level with Hillary voters.

    CNN has a story today that gave me considerable pause. Its a story I really have to restrain myself from making a joke about (though it seems to beg for one).

    It involves this incredibly sanctimonious woman, someone who thinks nothing of legislating her morality onto others. A woman who is herself the mother of an unmarried prego daughter. A woman who proudly proclaims that she's qualified to be President because of both her record as Mayor and as Governor of the State of Alaska -- a state which has 2.5 times as many rapes as the national average.

    Palin insisted while she was mayor of Wasilla, that victims of rape be required to pay the cost of their examination for criminal evidence. As governor she resisted efforts by her State police commissioner to get sexual assault funding. (later firing him because of it).

    The way she dealt with this issue both as Mayor and Governor is incomprehensible. To me, excusing or explaining how she acted is indefensible.

    Does this kind of hypocrisy rise to the level of disqualification ?? Is it possible to be too politically dishonest to be a candidate in america ??



    Palin's town charged women for rape exams

    From Jessica Yellin
    CNN
    ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's hometown required women to pay for their own rape examinations while she was mayor, a practice her police chief fought to keep as late as 2000.

    Former state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat, sponsored a state law requiring cities to provide the examinations free of charge to victims. He said the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002.

    "It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla," Croft told CNN. "We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them."

    Alaska's Legislature in 2000 banned the practice of charging women for rape exam kits -- which experts said could cost up to $1,000.

    Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, often talks about her experience running Wasilla, population approximately 7,000, and that has prompted close scrutiny of her record there. Wasilla's practice of charging victims for their rape exams while she was mayor has gotten wide circulation on the Internet and in the mainstream media...

    ...Alaska has had the worst record of any state in rape and in murder of women by men. The rape rate in Alaska is 2.5 times the national average...

    ...Croft, the former state representative who sponsored the law changing the practice, says it seems unlikely Palin was not aware of the issue.

    "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it," Croft said...

    ...Wasilla stood out. Tara Henry, a forensic nurse who has been treating rape victims across Alaska for the last 12 years, told CNN that opposition to Croft's bill from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon was memorable.

    "Several municipal law enforcement agencies in the state did have trouble budgeting and paying for the evidence collection for sexual assault victims," Henry said. "What I recall is that the chief of police in the Wasilla police department seemed to be the most vocal about how it was going to affect their budget."...

    ...he introduce legislation as a way to shame cities into changing their practice, and Wasilla resisted.

    "I remember they had continued opposition," Croft said...

    ...In testimony, one expert called the practice of billing the victim "incomprehensible." Others compared it to "dust[ing] for fingerprints" after a burglary, only "the victim's body is the crime scene."

    During a rape exam, the victim removes her clothing and a medical professional gathers DNA evidence from her body. There is also a medical component to assess her injuries. That component has led some law enforcement agencies to balk at paying.

    Henry, the forensic nurse, said charging victims "retraumatizes them."

    "Asking them to pay for something law enforcement needs in order to investigate their case, it's almost like blaming them for getting sexually assaulted," she said.

    The Alaska Legislature agreed. The bill passed unanimously...

    Judy Patrick, who was Palin's deputy mayor and friend, blames the state.

    "The bigger picture of what was going on at the time was that the state was trying to cut their own budget...

    But the state was never responsible for paying the costs of local investigations...


    Before Palin came to City Hall, the Wasilla Police Department paid for the rape kits out of a fund for miscellaneous costs, according to the police chief who preceded Fannon and was fired by Palin. That budget line was cut by more than half during Palin's tenure...

    ...Jill Hazelbaker, communications director for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that "to imply that Gov. Palin is or has ever been an advocate of charging victims for evidence gathering kits is an utter distortion of reality."...

    ..."She does not, nor has she ever believed that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence gathering test."


    Those who fought the policy are unconvinced.

    "It's incomprehensible to me that this could be a rogue police chief and not a policy decision. It lasted too long and it was too high-profile," Croft said.

    The rape kit charges have become an issue among Palin critics who say as governor she has not done enough to combat Alaska's epidemic problem of violence against women. They point to a small funding increase for domestic violence shelters at a time when Alaska has a multibillion-dollar budget surplus. Victims' advocates say that services are lacking and that Palin cut funding for a number of programs that treat female victims of violence.

    ...Palin's office released e-mails showing that one area of disagreement between her and Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was his lobbying in Washington for $30 million to fund a new program of sexual assault response teams...
    Last edited by BARYE; 09/22/2008 at 10:18 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. #2  
    Harmless and infrequent embellishment is understandable as politics as usual (e.g. Hillary's sniper PMD). What McSame & co are doing is off the charts. I don't understand how anyway could excuse that behavior.
  3.    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo View Post
    Harmless and infrequent embellishment is understandable as politics as usual (e.g. Hillary's sniper PMD). What McSame & co are doing is off the charts. I don't understand how anyway could excuse that behavior.
    You're very right pdxtreo. They are off the charts -- they tell lies and half truths as casually as Walmart greeters wishing customers to "have a nice day!"

    To some of us, truth is as hard and unbreakable as carbon steel (or at least no more bendable than spring steel ).

    Since the 1988 Dukakis/Daddy race run by Lee Atwater (with junior as his apprentice) -- the Repugs have treated the truth like it was some poisonous elixir of mercury -- adaptable to any form that they arbitrarily assign to it.

    What is breathtaking in the current race, is that it stars John McCain -- someone who has worked to create an image of integrity (justifiable or not) for many years.

    That he he has felt so uninhibited to spontaneously recreate himself depending on the mood of the day would be laughable -- were it not for the fact that they have historically always gotten away with it.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4. #4  
    Of course you are including the hypocracy of Obama in this conversation. We must remember that he did receive lots of money from those people who ran Fannie & Freddie, that he has economic advisers that were in charge of F&F prior to its collapse. That one of those who ran F&F was forced to resign due to some allegations, but that person took with them something like 26 million dollars. We are aware that President Bush has asked for F&F reform something like 16 to 18 times this year and each time, the Democrat controlled congress did nothing at all, with Frankie saying it was not needed. Also, do not forget that the Democrats are exceedingly guilty because they have refused to take the steps necessary, regardless of who was "in charge." Do not forget who is charge of a certain committee that has substantial ties to this whole mess and what is exceedingly disturbing is that neither side is calling for the electrocution of the guilty people. Whether you like it or not, Obama is exceedingly dirty here and yet hopes the world ignores his part of it.

    So let's have a discussion, but try not to make it one sided. So far it is very one-sided.
  5. #5  
    Don't let anyone try to tell you that Palin has the sympathy of the female vote. We [women] liked Hillary because she was a smart woman, and while we might not always have agreed with her politics, we admired her. Palin holds no appeal to women voters.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by Alli View Post
    Don't let anyone try to tell you that Palin has the sympathy of the female vote. We [women] liked Hillary because she was a smart woman, and while we might not always have agreed with her politics, we admired her. Palin holds no appeal to women voters.
    Don't bother Ben with too much truth. The scales are tipped very heavily one way with the reality that one party has created for us all - much more so than the other party - yet Ben and his ilk continue to spew his delusional views, backed entirely by nothing but his generalisms.

    (Oh..and I hope you're right about female voters )
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by Alli View Post
    Don't let anyone try to tell you that Palin has the sympathy of the female vote. We [women] liked Hillary because she was a smart woman, and while we might not always have agreed with her politics, we admired her. Palin holds no appeal to women voters.
    Alli -- what was your first impression after she was chosen -- and then after her speech ??

    How have your feelings about her evolved ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8. #8  
    My initial reaction was - who is she?! My second reaction was - cool, a woman. Then she opened her mouth. Bush Doctrine?

    The more she speaks, the more she makes Bush look not so much eloquent, but like he's at least done his research. If she needs that many assistants, let's just elect one of them.

Posting Permissions