Countdown to Election Day: What We Have Learned About Sarah Palin (part 3)

Top Six Reasons Why Sarah Palin is Not Qualified to be Vice President (much less president!)

****

Reason Number Four: She is a serial hypocrite. She can't be trusted.

The word "hypocrisy" comes easily to mind in reviewing what we've learned about Sarah Palin so far. It may be what is most definitive about her.

Here are a few examples:

• Yesterday she launched into a tirade against Obama's supposed inability to meet a security threat, this, the most calming, thoughtful, steady-in-a-storm presidential candidate we've had for a long time.

And who is she? She is a person who touted her national security credentials on the basis of being governor of a state that borders Russia. Never actually met anyone from Russia. But there they are, right next door! She also went to the airport to send off a national guard contingent heading for Iraq. That qualifies her for "commander in chief."

America at crisis with Sarah Palin in the White House (horrors!) may signal the end of the free world. But we can't trust Obama . . .

• She derides Obama (wrongly - as is true with most all of her accusations) of being a "socialist," when, in fact, she presides over the most socialist state economy in our country. But don't take my word for it. You can read it on Fox News: LINK.

The only truly socialist governor in our country attacks Obama for a socialism he has never espoused.

• She touts her qualifications as a crusader against pork. But those who have watched her astonishing rise from small town mayor to governor of a small state, note that she has had her hand out for pork from the beginning. It's one reason she's been so popular. And then there's that bridge she was for before she was against.

She is against ear-marks except when she is for them.

Sarah Palin is a hypocrite. She cannot be trusted.

If You're Feeling Tempted to Vote for McCain/Palin

Here's a couple of delicious videos that nees to be passed on to as many people as possible.

Hilarious . . . . but maybe not so hilarious.



From: Partnership for a McCain-free White House

This one is for your enjoyment.

Click on the picture below for an interactive exercise imagining what it would be like to have Sarah Palin in the White House.

God forbid!

Is Sarah Palin Putting Obama's Life in Danger?

Frank Rich from the New York Times has now raised the question that is beginning to get traction among those who understand how dangerous incendiary political rhetoric can be. The question is: is the exagerated, inflamatory anti-Obama rhetoric of Sarah Palin encouraging the kind of rage that can turn into violence? Is Obama's life now in greater danger because of her ill-informed attacks?

Rich believes so. And I think he's right. Sarah Palin has gone from being a bad joke for late night comedians, to a dangerous demagogue whose words could incite the kind of violent rage that led to the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. It's not too much of a stretch to believe that this could be the case.

Here's how Rich puts it:

From the New York Times:


Excerpt from "The Terrorist, Barak Hussein Obama"

John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

FULL ARTICLE

Sarah Palin: But I didn't break any laws (wink, wink)

Here's a headline from the New York Daily News:

Sarah Palin: Troopergate Probe Findings Show I didn't Break Any Law

This is Sarah Palin's defense in the face of the damning evidence of her abuse of office. "But I didn't break the law!"

What's disturbing about this is that she actually believes this exonerates her. Which only underscores a point many have made about her. She really is George Bush in a skirt. And not only because of the way she tortures the English language.

Here's the point: the Bush administration has made a fine art of skirting the edges of legality. Wire tapping? We didn't break the law. Torture? Where does it say we can't do that? Getting rid of lawyers we don't like? Can't convict us of anything here.

That, essentially, is Sarah Palin's defense. Can't convict me, so it must be OK. Never mind evidence of the abuse of power. In Palin's eyes its OK as long as she didn't "break the law."

It's George Bush in a skirt.

When Barak Obama says that John McCain means Bush redoux what he usually has in mind is the way McCain has walked in near lock step with the Bush agenda over the past eight years. We can now add another element to this. To elect a McCain/Palin ticket is to have a Bush clone a heart beat away from the presidency.

God help us if that happens.

McCain/Palin: Guilty as Charged

With the revelation of Palin's guilt in the Troopergate scandal we now know the difference between the McCain/Palin team and the Obama/Biden team.

It's guilt by association versus just plan guilt.
----------


The McCain/Palin team have done their best to smear Obama using the classic Republican tactic of "guilt by association." Obama, they say, is ill suited to be president because of the company he has kept in the past. It's what others have done rather than what he has done that convicts him, even though the ties they cite are inconsequential.

With the Republicans, on the other hand, its simply guilt.


McCain's abuse of office through unwise dealings with Savings and Loan shark, Charles Keating: Guilty.







Palin's abuse of office for a personal vendetta: Guilty.







Big difference between the two.