Replies

The creep forgot this part of the story.

SUPREME COURT PICK

Bailey suggests in the book that one of Palin’s picks for the Supreme Court was colored by her animosity against Wooten. He wrote that District Court Judge Morgan Christen ruled in favor of Palin’s sister in her custody dispute with Wooten, and that Todd Palin raved about how Christen raked Wooten over the coals.

Christen later applied for the state Supreme Court and was picked by the Alaska Judicial Council as one of the two candidates for Palin to consider appointing. Bailey wrote that he warned Palin it would be a conflict of interest, but she wasn’t interested.

But a spokeswoman for the Alaska Court System said Bailey got his facts wrong. Christen was never the assigned judge in the Wooten custody case, didn’t make any rulings in favor of either party, and played a “very limited role,” according to Christine Johnson, administrative director for the court system.

Johnson said prior to applying for the Supreme Court Christen conducted a conference in the case, where both sides agreed to a settlement. Wooten and Palin’s sister later had a dispute over what they’d agreed upon in the settlement and asked Christen to resolve it, Johnson said. But Christen sent it to another judge because she’d applied to the Supreme Court and had a conflict.

When you go back home to the DU, take this tidbit with you.

Palin, as governor, also vetoed a strong “conservative” measure to deny same-sex partners government health benefits - because the bill directly violated the Alaskan constitution.

She must be a odd politician. Imagine nominating a judge based on merit or vetoing a bill on constitutionality..... Now wouldn’t that be something different in Washington?

No, Mr. K, I'd just prefer a more principled, more conservative candidate that doesn't have negative approval ratings over 50%.

I'm sick and tired of idiots like you attacking anyone that questions whether is the best candidate for the job.

Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann are both INFINITELY BETTER candidates with a better chance of winning.

It's past time you stopped throwing around insults in order to stifle legitimate debate on who the best CONSERVATIVE AND PRO-LIFER is for the job.

Palin isn't even pro-life enough to support the concept that human life begins at conception. She has no problem with the morning-after pill being legal, for example.

*DISCOURAGEMNT TROLL*

Better for Palin to get this stuff out now when there's time enough to deal with it and turn it into "discredited old news".

This type of thing hits the press as a new/fresh story on the eve of a critical primary or before the general election (should she win the nomination) and it's going to be real problematic.

Compare/contrast two recent examples. In 2000 Bush's DUI hit right before the election and is probably the thing that cost him a popular vote win and helped muddy his victory. In 2004 there was the fake ANG memo which hit a little ways before the election - giving the opportunity to be rebutted and discredited.

Palin supporter and detractors alike should see the value in having her go through a hard fight to get the nomination. She'll get bloodied, but should learn from it. Damaging information on her will be promoted by various interests, but that means she can address it and get it behind her if she gets the nomination.