Replies

You raise the scaffolding of your theory on stunningly incomplete data. Your theory, every point of it, requires an event for which you offer no evidence whatsoever, some sinister, inverse “conversion,” a falling to the dark side, Palin going from this ordinary, good Christian woman depicted in her pre-2008 biography, to this avaricious, devilishly cunning, evil deceiver of her fan base. Your entire system of hypotheses concerning her current behavior relies 100% on this unproven belief about her character. And it won’t do to go circular on me, using your conclusions to prove your a priori belief. You have, however inadvertently, introduced her character as legitimate subject matter in your theory of the case, and you must be held to proving that fact by independent means.

So I put it to you directly: Do you have objective, material evidence that Sarah Palin is of such a character that she would intentionally mislead millions for personal gain?

Such an accusation is the very soul of defamation, unless of course it can be shown true. I am an objective person. If you really can show that Sarah Palin is someone other than the good-hearted, intelligent, honest-to-a-fault, frugal, and non-materialistic person that emerges from her biography and all its data sources so far revealed, I will listen. I do not want to vote for someone capable of playing that kind of game with good people. No one here would. And that of course is your objective, to taint her reputation by casting doubt on her motives, for which you never offer proof.

And please note that innuendo is not proof. There is a term I like, “equivocal,” which loosely means, “of equal voice.” You offer her continued tenure at Fox as “proof” she has no intent to run at any point in the future. That is non-sequitur logic because it is equivocal data, i.e., the individual fact cited can be taken any number of ways, some of which support your view, some of which do not. If Palin is running, she has a distinct advantage, financially and tactically, by staying below FEC radar until the last possible moment. As long as she remains ambiguous abut her intentions within the coded language of the relevant legal precedents, there is no basis upon which her employer can invoke equal time restrictions. This is backed up by her power to enforce the contract should Fox act prematurely.

I had a law professor who once asked the class about an innovative end run done by the protagonist in an estate case we were studying. “Is it wrong, or is it clever?” Many people come to the law and see it as a barrier to their objectives. And oftentimes it is. But some, the more clever and persistent among us, are able to spot gaps in the law. And if those gaps are not unethical, but merely legislative oversights, and if the thing itself is not morally wrong to do, is it a crime to be clever and make good use of those gaps? Of course not.

But of course in doing clever things one risks being misunderstood by the less clever. Which is doubtless why Palin, whom I seriously doubt has turned to the dark side, has repeatedly signaled her ground troops to stay at the ready. And it is really not too hard to pick up that signal, if you do not assume facts not in evidence regarding her character.

We do agree on one thing. There is purpose in her actions. But we disagree on the person who is doing those acts. You say it is the Evil Palin, sans evidence. I say it is the Good Palin, because of the abundance of evidence. Time will tell which of us is right. No one is perfect but God, and I have eaten crow before and am prepared to man up and eat it again if I must. Only this time I think it is you and your fellow defamers who must be prepared to taste the foul feast. I will loan you my salt and ketchup should it come to that. I am sure you would do the same for me.