Posted on 09/20/2008 12:20:03 AM PDT by Luke21
An internal government document obtained by ABC News appears to contradict Sarah Palin's most recent explanation for why she fired her public safety chief, the move which prompted the now-contested state probe into "Troopergate."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Yes - exactly! I’m just glad I’m not the only one shocked at Charlie Gibson. He was almost openly showing his disgust at someone most of us admire very much.
I’m sure there are about fifteen holes we could poke into the thing. There are some very smart people here.
Great post. You’re dead on. I’d have fired this guy long before Palin did. It’s a crime that the trooper is still on the payroll.
It’s funny how the Democrats always accuse the GOP of dirty tricks when they’re the ones practicing them. As far as I can tell, the GOP dropped the practice with RINO Nixon, while the left has become 8th degree masters.
Nothing has illustrated the absolute breakdown and corruption of the press and the Democrat party like this election. I don’t particularly like McCain, but he MUST win.
LBJ bugged Goldwater. He used to check the light bulbs.
From what Palin has said about this: the guy was not doing an effective job in the position he held and Gov. Palin decided to replace him. She offered him another job in a position she thought would benefit the people of Alaska and this guy decided not to take the job.
Technically he quit!
This is an effective tactic used by an employer when they know the employee will reject the reassignment and resign or quit.
Palin's popularity with the general public, as opposed to Republicans, is clearly on the wane. There was such an explosion of interest, arguing, fighting and defending that we're all kind of sick of her as a celeb figure now (I'm not talking about her as a politician, merely as A New Face). And I don't know how any honest person can claim she performed spectacularly on Charlie Gibson's little show, no thanks to Charlie himself.
So it's down to McCain, as it always was going to be. I happen to think he has the ability to stop Obama, though the podium-style debate isn't his strong suit. This election is going to be very close, and anyone who's feeling secure right now about who the winner will be in November is ignorant.
Liberals don't use logic. They throw out accusations. When you catch one, they throw another. Just remember when Clinton fired every single US attorney. Bush fired a few and it's a grand scandal with panting media hounds and Democrats on the house floor.
The only reason McCain has people like me voting for him is Palin. I can't stand McCain. I think he's a Rino and a betrayer. But I've been in there rooting and fighting for him.
Palin brings the base and maybe some other people who wouldn't have voted for two stodgy white guys. It was the best possible choice and the only one that gives him a shot.
So I'll just post what I wrote below. If anyone wants to do me a favor and retry posting this over there, I'd appreciate it!
What is it with these "journalists" (I use the term loosely) and their Palinophobia? They keep screaming "Fire" and then just churn out smoke. And more smoke. And more smoke. Sometimes smoke and mirrors. But no fire has yet shown up. What do they take us for? It's rather insulting, actually, for them to assume every one of us will just read the headline and a paragraph or two and yell "Ha! They caught her! Nailed her to the wall this time, they did, they did!"
What ABC seems to be saying to their audience, between the lines, is this: "OK, so if you do read our whole article through carefully, then yes, you will see it is all smoke and mirrors and hand-waving, and there's nothing really there of any importance to substantiate the smearing innuendo in the article's title. But we don't care, because you're not our target audience anyway. Our target audience is, in PT Barnum's immortal words, the 'Some People You Can Fool All Of The Time'. So don't waste your time reading this article carefully. It's not aimed at you, but rather at those who read only the title, or the title and first paragraph, or who try to make it past the first paragraph but get bogged down in all the boring details and give up while assuming there's some real meat in the rest of the article".
Another Shining Moment in American "Journalism"
I've seen many polls showing the general public is cooling on Palin, and while I don't trust numbers in polls I do trust them as general indicators.
I find it interesting that you can’t post. Reminds me of these media polls where the totals don’t ever change on our side.
Of course AOL commie news polls are always a hoot. Stuff like, “What ias your opinion of Hillary Clinton?” The choices are great, greater than great and the greatest human being ever born.
I also tried posting twice without success, even though I registered. Great response, hope you try again. Maybe they review the postings first?
I believe that, whether by plan or more likely accident, the fireworks at MSNBC were a test case for the Obama fans in media. They saw the rampant partisanship going on at MSNBC resulted in NO negative fallout.
Also, Lou Dobbs has shown that one can easily go from objective reporter (which he was) to fiery op-ed vocalist, which is what all reporters actually want to be--they don't trust you, the silly uninformed ones, to GET the point of a story, they want to actually tell you what to think of what they're reporting.
So the success of OR, Dobbs and MSNBC--and the death of Tim Russert, in retrospect the one "balanced" member of the media--and the complete lack of criticism by those the media professionals respect--namely, each other--have given the liberal reporters the go-ahead to just go on and be biased. With the exception of a single piece in National Journal, I've not seen ANY self-criticism by the media. And that's the key--the media realized they were the only ones who'd be able to legitimize such criticism, so why not just DO it? They ALL think they're Tim Russert, they ALL think they're "unbiased" and just "telling the truth", and why deal with the frustrations of telling "the truth" and STILL having those morons (i.e. anyone not in the media, anyone who doesn't subscribe to the NYT) vote for THAT IDIOT BUSH NOT ONCE BUT TWICE??????
People get into journalism to make a difference in the world. But now that we all have access to all kinds of journalism, as opposed to just three liberal networks and the local papers, more and more opinions are available to us, more and more points of view that aren't from ABC/CBS/NBC. So they have to live in the new world, and the way to do that isn't just to create news stories that merely lead us to their own pre-ordained conclusions--they're just going to TELL us exactly how and what to think.
New doubts about ABC. When will they check into anything on St Obama?
But we've had these hacks for a long time. Do you remember the hit job Larry King did on Bush one the Friday before the election in 1992? That jackass special prosecutor indicted Caspar Weinberger over Iran-Contra. King was attacking Bush in a lion's den of Republicans, and his eyes were bulging and he was sweating the whole time. But that scandal was a dirty trick, and went away right after the election was over and Bill and Hill won.
In 2000, a low level Gore operative in Maine launched the Bush DUI story. Rather and company got nailed by this board or Kerry might be running for re-election.
The rules changed in 1992, after a pretty good dry run and Quayle hunt in 1988. The media has always been deranged liberals, but there were lines they wouldn't cross before. Like you said, that's all out the door now.
You remember the old song, “That’ll be the day?”
I do recall the Weinberger thing just before the election, and I also recall the “investigation” into whether Bush 41 was involved in the October Surprise—shockingly, Tom Foley announced the investigation closed just after the election Bush lost.
The program closed with: “George Bush is guilty of treason.” I told my boss, “There was no war so no treason. This is ludicrous. You can be sued for running this.” It was 1988. It didn't run.
The greatest thing in the world would be for the bloggers to post nasty little items, truths but nasty, about our media whores.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.