Is Sarah "Casual With the Truth" or LYING?

@anniepa (27280)
United States
July 11, 2009 6:38pm CST
Could it be that Sarah Palin really IS "casual with the truth" as an unnamed McCain campaign spokesperson had allegedly said according to the recent Vanity Fair article about her? Below is a link for an interesting article and an excerpt from that article: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/key-reason-palin-gave-for-quitting-appears-to-be-false/ During her resignation speech last week, Palin presented herself as a heroic defender of the taxpayer. She said that money being spent on government lawyers to defend against these “frivolous ethics violations” could be “going to things that are very important, like troopers and roads and teachers and fish research.” Palin repeated exactly the same point this week. But David Murrow, a spokesperson for the Governor, said in an interview that much of this money was budgeted to the lawyers in advance and would have gone to them anyway, even if state lawyers hadn’t been defending against these ethics complaints. In response to our questions, the Governor’s office provided us with a detailed breakdown of the millions Palin has claimed has gone to defending against ethics complaints. It does list roughly $1.9 million in expenditures. But Murrow, the spokesperson, acknowledged to our reporter, Amanda Erickson, that this total was arrived at by adding up attorney hours spent on fending off complaints — based on the fixed salaries of lawyers in the governor’s office and the Department of Law. The money would have gone to the lawyers no matter what they were doing. The complaints are “just distracting them from other duties,” Murrow said. In other words, while these lawyers might have been free to do other legal work for the state, the ethics complaints have apparently not had the real world impact Palin has claimed, and didn’t drain money away from cops, teachers, roads and other things. Similarly, TPM reports that there are only three ethics complaints outstanding against the Palin administration in any case — which, combined with the above, casts serious doubts on one of her chief stated reasons for quitting. Murrow has not responded to folllow-up questions asking him to explain how this squares with Palin’s claims. We’ll update you if he does. (End of excerpt) Below are more links which you may find interesting. The first one is what Palin told the Anchorage Daily News on July 6, three days after she announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska. She repeated her claim that her resignation was for the sake of the Alaskan taxpayers and to save them millions. http://www.adn.com/palin/story/855907.html http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/alaska-paper-digs-deeper-into-our-story-about-palins-dissembling/ http://www.adn.com/palin/story/858523.html One thing is quite clear - this money would have been spent anyway so it didn't take away from teachers or police officers. This is kind of like the "Thanks but no thanks for the Bridge to Nowhere" which actually came AFTER she said, "Thanks, show me the money" (I'm paraphrasing) and actually took the money and used it elsewhere. If anyone dared say she was lying they'd be accused of viciously attackig her. Maybe "casual with the truth" is more acceptable? Any thoughts? Annie
2 people like this
5 responses
@mcat19 (1357)
• United States
12 Jul 09
Somehow this does not surprise me at all. What does surprise me is that someone was able to figure out what she was saying. Every time Sarah Palin makes a speech or a statement, I have no idea what she's saying. She gives me the impression that she doesn't know either.
2 people like this
@spalladino (17922)
• United States
12 Jul 09
This does put a couple of things in a different light, Annie. First of all, it explains why Palin made the comment she did about the Department of Law in the White House...she assumed they had one since Alaska does. I was no aware that this department existed in Alaska's government but it makes sense that, if it does, it's staffed and funded in the annual budget like any other department is. So, yes, suggesting that the legal expenses used to defend against the ethics complaints were taking funds from other areas is far from the truth.
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
12 Jul 09
So I reckon she figured if they had a Department of Law up there in the great state of Alaska there would be one down there in Washington and since there are more people down there they would have more power...(sucking air in desperately) also, there are more taxpayers so there are more people for the Department of Law to take money from the tax dollars so they can take them (another deep gasp) pesky frivolities of ethics violations and toss 'em out...also this wouldn't be so unfair to the people, also there would be more staff members so she wouldn't have to spend every minute of every day fighting this frivolousness. Also, the Department of Law down there in Washington would defend her frivolous ethics violations without making her use her own money perhaps...also... Annie
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17922)
• United States
12 Jul 09
LOL...catch your breath yet? She made it sound like Alaska's Department of Law was only involved in Supreme Court issues while she and her entire staff spent most of every day dealing with the ethics issues...because that's what she said. I'd still like to know why she and Todd racked up half a mil in legal expenses...
2 people like this
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
12 Jul 09
How DID she and Todd rack up all those "unpaid legal bills"? If the state had to foot the bill and do the work what did she have to hire her own lawyers for to begin with? Something does not compute... Annie
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
12 Jul 09
Annie, have you ever managed budgets for a business before? Have you ever been a department head or a manager who had to schedule employees and manage line schedules? I could be wrong, but what I'm getting from your statements is that you've never been in a management position and certainly not in an executive position. I'll try and lay it out for you. Say you run a small store where you have 4 employees working 40 hours a week. Now, no matter what jobs they're doing, they're all getting paid. Now, imagine a few jerks come into the store, knock down some shelves, and 3 of your 4 employees spend the whole day cleaning up the mess. With only 1 of your 4 employees doing the job they were supposed to be doing wouldn't you feel like the money spent on the other 3 was "lost"? Do you think your store would be providing the same level of service to its customers with 3/4 of your staff doing something other than their regular job? Lost time is lost money when dealing with staff. Now as far as truths like the Bridge to Nowhere bit, that's politics. I don't like such things, but Obama has his own long list of lies many of which are far more blatant than the flip flop on the Bridge to Nowhere. Kind of like that claim the US is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
12 Jul 09
"And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." Maybe you don't like the statement the way it actually was said but it helps to use the whole sentence at least. "Flip-flops" in and of themselves don't really bother me. I mean, everyone changes their minds now and then, often for a good reason. I'd prefer a politician who isn't afraid to admit to having had a change of heart because a situation changed or he or she simply learned more about something to one who stubbornly refuses to budge on anything. It's when they flip-flop and refuse to acknowledge that they've done so that I have a problem and as far as I know Palin has never acknowledged her change of heart about the bridge. Annie
• United States
12 Jul 09
Wow, come over to my discussions and talk real politics Ghana=Oil....anybody???
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
12 Jul 09
Are you going to challenge and say they are "Casual With the Truth" or LYING when Democrats say we are spending Billions on the war, when much of that money would would be used to pay for the soldiers and equipment anyway? After all the lawyers did have to investigate such serious violations as wearing a Jacket with a Company logo on it while performing an official government function. Such a serious violation can hardly be overlooked. Unlike the prosecution, of a US Senator (Republican) who is accused of taking items of value and not reporting it, which failed to mention to the defence, the judge and the Jury that the chief witness was sleeping with the chief investigator. A trial that may have influenced the outcome of an election and changed the balance of power in the US Senate. No we have to have to spend the time looking to see if the logo on the jacket is influencing the decisions of the Governor.
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
12 Jul 09
The bulk of the legal expenses for ethics charges against Palin were for "Trooper-Gate" which was filed before she was tapped as McCain's running mate. I don't know the exact details about the logo on her jacket but that does seem pretty silly, I'll admit that. Are you seriously trying to say we'd spend just as much for the military if we weren't at war in two countries? Annie
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
13 Jul 09
"The bulk of the legal expenses for ethics charges against Palin were for "Trooper-Gate" That is incorrect Annie. See you need to start reading REAL news sources and quit assuming anti-Palin blogs like the one you cited for this thread are telling the truth. Troopergate cost the state $300,000 to $500,000 depending on who you ask. That is about 25% of the $1.9 million spent to date on ethics complaints. The point being made though Annie, is that certain money is spent regardless, but we still have a right to complain HOW it is spent. How many times did the left complain about money being spent investigating Clinton? That money was going to be spent regardless yet nobody was called a liar for using it as an argument. Just recently someone, possibly xfachtor, started a thread on how congress is wasting money on this garbage resolution about Michael Jackson. Congress would have been paid for work that day regardless of what they did so was HE lying as well?
@irishidid (8716)
• United States
12 Jul 09
You voted for Obama and he lied a lot. He's still lying and will probably tell more and more lies throughout his presidency. What makes his lies anymore acceptable? Here's the difference between his lies and Sarah Palin's-his are most likely to do irreversible damage to our country.