Skip

EPIC FAIL: The Astroturf is always greener on the other side.
September 24, 2008 3:07 AM   Subscribe

Rusty Shackleford over at right-wing anti-Muslim jihad blog The Jawa Report has posted that the Obama campaign, in an effort to portray Sarah Palin a member of the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, is engaged in a smear campaign through the use of viral video and astroturf techniques on You Tube.

Shackleford claims the narrator of the smear video has worked previously on ads put out by the Obama campaign. And that “This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with [Obama campaign manager] David Axelrod's PR firm, which has a history of engaging in "phony grassroots efforts.”
Shackleford also posits that the haste with which the individual who posted the video on You Tube, “eswinner,” or Ethan S. Winner, an executive for the public relations firm Winner & Assoc., removed the video proves an Obama campaign cover up in the works and that Winner & Assoc. were most likely paid by Axelrod to execute an Astroturf smear campaign against Sarah Palin. Axelrod's PR firm had a brief relationship with Winner & Assoc. from a Detroit Mayor's initiative they worked in separate capacities in 1996.

Winner and Assoc, work predominately for big oil and utility companies, but also handle political campaigns and initiatives throught a subsidiary: Winner & Mandabach.

Shackleford, although he presents the piece as having a high probability of being correct, admits, as his legal team advises him to, that much of it is "conjecture" and "speculation," Yet in his eagerness to expose Obama as a lowdown Chicago style political operator, he fails to discover, until he reads it here, that there is, indeed, an individual with a suspicious and compelling tie to the Winner & Assoc. public relations firm. That person is Sen. John McCain.

In 2002 John McCain worked for Winner & Mandabach, a subsidiary of Winner & Assoc., to convince the people of Arizona to vote “YES” on proposition 202.

One of three competing Indian gaming initiatives supported by the 17 Tribes coalition of Arizona. The 17 tribes hired Winner & Mandabach to see to it that there proposition was the one that would become law. McCain was brought in by Winner & Mandabach as a third-party player to lend his name and support to ads and mailings. The proposition was opposed by Arizona Christian groups and denied the state of Arizona $300 million dollars in annual taxes annually or imposing greater oversight and regulation.

What compensation was made available to McCain for his services?

“While candidates, PACs and party committees are held accountable for political funds, Indian tribes file nothing. … Disclosure only comes from those who file reports indicating they received donations from a tribe. … [T]here is no way to double check the accuracy of the reports.”


McCain was twice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, in 1995–1997 and 2005–2007.


(On a side note for those who know of him, Prop 202 was also supported by human rights violator and denier of constitutional rights Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Previously on Metafilter.)
posted by Skygazer (73 comments total) 21 users marked this as a favorite

 
Well done, sir. However your post (which ends in delicious irony) is too long and eloquent to ever reach its intended audience or do much damage to the brainwashers who have (so effectively) convinced your Aunt Betty in Charleston that Senator Obama is a 'secret Muslim'.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:13 AM on September 24, 2008


Douchehat right wing blogger fails to do any actual real reporting or research. News at 11.
posted by IvoShandor at 3:29 AM on September 24, 2008


Awesome post.
posted by Jofus at 3:34 AM on September 24, 2008


Mr. Shackleford's blog post was nearly unreadable. Way too long and rambling, and filled with circumstancial 'evidence' and supposition. But all I could do was skim it. Is there any actual substance in that obfuscatintg stream of conciousness?

The OP was much more succinct and to the point.
posted by sandraregina at 3:35 AM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


Senator Obama is a 'secret Muslim'.

The same Senator Obama who eats partially aborted foetuses?
posted by mattoxic at 3:54 AM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


And who wears clothing made from unbleached cloth (produced from corded cotton yarn) in private?
posted by maxwelton at 3:58 AM on September 24, 2008 [3 favorites]


So is she a member of the Alaska Independence Party or not? And is it really a smear if it's actually true?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:01 AM on September 24, 2008


until he reads it here

Unfortunately, he will not read it here. If he does read it here, he will not care. If he does care, he will do ever more tortuous logic twisting until he has some Truthy Factz to fit his agenda.

The man writes a blog about Muslims called "The Jawa Report." This indicates to me that he's all but filed a restraining order requiring that anything smelling like truth, logic and sanity all stay 500 feet away from him at all times.

However, I read it. * high five!*
posted by louche mustachio at 4:04 AM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]




Douchehat right wing blogger fails to do any actual real reporting or research PR firm takes on any client that can afford its services. News at 11.

ftfy
posted by chillmost at 4:11 AM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


RIght wing bloggers are such dicks. They're like the oil slick on the dead waters of a gulf of idiocy.

And McCain is going DOWN!
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:27 AM on September 24, 2008


Douchehat right wing blogger fails to do any actual real reporting or research. News at 11.

Please stop the "news at 11" type comments.
They are simply inane and don't add anything of value.
posted by sour cream at 4:27 AM on September 24, 2008


Please stop complaining about the way people make comments.
They are inane and don't add anything of value. QFT.
posted by Jimbob at 4:29 AM on September 24, 2008 [23 favorites]


So is she a member of the Alaska Independence Party or not? And is it really a smear if it's actually true?

"Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, told ABC News on Monday that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time.

This, it should be noted, does not square with official records.

Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, 'Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time.'

Clark on Tuesday night said that she had been mistaken."

So not true and really a smear.
posted by three blind mice at 4:31 AM on September 24, 2008


Also, there are about a dozen voice actors who do 90 percent of ALL national and major market political commercial voiceovers. And about 4 who get 90 percent of that work.

If using the same actor proves anything, we're living in a one party state.

Here's a cool NPR story from four years ago on campaign ad voice-over artists; at the end, they get a pair of them to read nursery rhymes as attack ads, which is wickedly funny.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:33 AM on September 24, 2008 [3 favorites]


Oh, duh. HERE is that NPR story.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:33 AM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


The Jawa Report? WTF?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:41 AM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


....the Obama campaign, in an effort to portray Sarah Palin a member of the secessionist Alaska Independence Party....

How insidious! They must have kidnapped all those AIP officials and implanted memories in them! Or perhaps sent operatives back in time as moles, rising through the ranks of the AIP and ready to leap out in 2008 to falsely claim the Palins as members!

I don't have enough data to tell which of these scenarios is more likely, but clearly my only rational choice is to vote for John McCain. I bet he's right after all about the economy being fundamentally sound and brown and female people loving to be second class citizens.
posted by DU at 4:50 AM on September 24, 2008


Sure. She's been a Republican since '82. But she definitely had an interest in an Alaskan secessionist group.

I mean, I'm a Democrat, but if I was on record going to a NAMBLA meeting just to "see the other side of the argument," it probably wouldn't be good for my career, political or otherwise.

It's not a smear by any means -- she was very friendly with and interested in a group that LITERALLY WANTED TO SECEDE FROM THE US.
posted by bardic at 4:54 AM on September 24, 2008 [3 favorites]


The OP was much more succinct and to the point.

Riiiiight, so now I'm gonna go wade through some tortured raving wing-nut blog post?
posted by From Bklyn at 4:57 AM on September 24, 2008


It's not a smear by any means -- she was very friendly with and interested in a group that LITERALLY WANTED TO SECEDE FROM THE US.

It is a smear (quite literally) to take the fact that she may have been "friendly with and interested in a group that LITERALLY WANTED TO SECEDE FROM THE US" and to turn this into SHE WAS AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF A GROUP THAT LITERALLY WANTED TO SECEDE FROM THE US.

Moreover, aren't there like say 100 other reasons to oppose the lipstick-wearing pit bull?

And since when is supporting succession a bad thing? How else will those us from the coasts stop being oppressed by middle America? United all we seem to do is torture each other.
posted by three blind mice at 5:03 AM on September 24, 2008


Moreover, aren't there like say 100 other reasons to oppose the lipstick-wearing pit bull?

So, there's 101.
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:06 AM on September 24, 2008


I dunno. I'd say hanging out with secessionists, even for drinks, and wanting to be veep is kind of one of the biggest conflicts of interest out there.

She's a nutter, plain and simple. Her association here proves she's a nutter.

(And do I need to remind you about how Obama took heat for something his pastor said? As if he'd actually written Wright's speeches for him? Sorry, but Palin deserves the same level of "benefit of the doubt" that Obama has gotten which is to say, none.)
posted by bardic at 5:06 AM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


I can't wait till this election is over. I want MetaFilter back.
posted by TomMelee at 5:15 AM on September 24, 2008 [3 favorites]


I'm a lifelong Democrat and liberal here. And yet, when McCain won the Republican nomination, I thought, well, at least it's one of the honorable upfront guys, so even if my guy (or gal) loses, well, we'll end up with an honorable president, albeit one I disagree with on most issues. How wrong I was! I've never seen a more secretive, nasty, dishonorable campaign run by anyone. It's like McCain went to sleep one night, and a pod replaced him in the night, resulting in New McCain, who is *nothing* like the McCain I thought I knew.

I'm not giving Obama a free ride -- he's run some deceptive ads too. But generally, as in past campaigns in previous years, when he's confronted with an obvious falsehood, he generally stops the ad. McCain and Palin just lie right straight into the face of the public, and when confronted with the truth, they just lie some more. It's crazy. It's like they think the truth just doesn't even matter anymore. I *hope* that we show them that that's not true on election day.

And for a man who wants us to believe he has excellent judgment, picking a VP who he hasn't trusted to answer open questions from reporters doesn't give me any confidence in his judgment AT ALL, much less Palin's. The Republican ticket this year seems to be a couple of blatant and malicious liars with POOR judgment. I sincerely hope the racists don't throw this election to the wolves over Obama's skin color. How this election could even BE as close as it is, is mind-boggling to me.
posted by jamstigator at 5:18 AM on September 24, 2008 [5 favorites]


John McCain gets frequent unifocal pvc's?
posted by brevator at 5:33 AM on September 24, 2008


dishonorable...lie...lie more...truth not matter...blatant liars...How this election could even BE as close as it is, is mind-boggling to me.

Ever consider that the info you have via polling being close is also not a reflection of a 'true reality'?
posted by rough ashlar at 5:34 AM on September 24, 2008


This post has some great information.
posted by Damn That Television at 5:35 AM on September 24, 2008


I can't wait till this election is over. I want MetaFilter back.
posted by TomMelee


It'll get replaced with 'oh my god we are rally doomed' filter. Less doom posts on the blue if a Demopublican is chosen, more if a Republicrat. But if one needs daily doom posts, plenty of other placed to.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:41 AM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


Palin's husband, Todd, was a member of the AIP, so to continue the analogy from upthread, Sarah Palin may not have been an *official* member of NAMBLA, but her husband was a neighborhood team leader.
posted by billysumday at 5:53 AM on September 24, 2008


It isn't a "smear" to call her a member of the party. She's gone to party events and her husband was a member (he changed his registration when she ran for governor)

She also produced a video for their convention while she was governor (which was excerpted in the 'viral' video)

Ethan S. Winner. did create the video, and says he took it down because his family began receiving threatening phonecalls. He also said he wasn't paid by anyone to do it - it was a side project.
posted by delmoi at 6:09 AM on September 24, 2008


Moreover, aren't there like say 100 other reasons to oppose the lipstick-wearing pit bull?

The twelve lies of Sarah Palin As cataloged by Andrew Sullivan.
posted by delmoi at 6:13 AM on September 24, 2008


I have noticed a strange trend lately, a trend toward me no longer hating Andrew Sullivan. Actually I never really hated him, I was more disappointed than anything as he struck me as an intelligent person.
posted by Mister_A at 6:19 AM on September 24, 2008


Wait. Rusty Shackleford has his own blog?
posted by Sailormom at 6:21 AM on September 24, 2008


Where are all these Obama ads that people talk about? Down here in NW Arkansas, I get nothing but McCain attack ads on average every two hours or so.
posted by Atreides at 6:25 AM on September 24, 2008


And since when is supporting succession a bad thing?

1865.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:29 AM on September 24, 2008


Yeah, keeping the South around really turned out to be a fuckin' home run, didn't it?
posted by enn at 6:32 AM on September 24, 2008 [3 favorites]


PeterMcDermott: "So is she a member of the Alaska Independence Party or not?"

As other have pointed out, she's never been a member of AIP. But her husband Todd "First Dude" Palin was. From Talking Points Memo:
This afternoon, the director of Division of Elections in Alaska, Gail Fenumiai, told TPMmuckraker that Todd Palin registered in October 1995 to the Alaska Independence Party, a radical group that advocates for Alaskan secession from the United States.

Besides a short period of a few months in 2000 when he changed his registration to undeclared, Todd Palin remained a registered member of AIP until July 2002 when he registered again as an undeclared voter.
posted by scalefree at 6:33 AM on September 24, 2008


It's secession; succession is what she's attempting now. Accession is what we call it if we let these murderous thieving thugs drive us into the ground for four more years.
posted by Mister_A at 6:34 AM on September 24, 2008


Wait. Rusty Shackleford has his own blog?

Goddammit, you beat me. I cannot hear or read that name without imitating Gribble. It's like a burn on the roof of my mouth that I can't stop tonguing.
posted by middleclasstool at 6:39 AM on September 24, 2008


This brings up an interesting question: should Alaska be admitted to Cascadia?
posted by b1tr0t at 6:42 AM on September 24, 2008



Oh, duh. HERE is that NPR story.


Oh thank god, NPR aren't using Realplayer anymore. Hurrah.
posted by Happy Dave at 6:49 AM on September 24, 2008




Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, told ABC News on Monday that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time.

This, it should be noted, does not square with official records.


You can attend events put on by a political party, even though you are not officially registered with that party. When I lived in California in the 1990s, I used to go to Green Party meetings, but my party registration was always "Decline to State." Yet if I ran for president as a Democrat and some Republican sleaze merchant wanted to say I had ties to the "radical Green Party," it would still have a grain of truth, even though I was never officially registered as a Green.

There were numerous people in the McCarthy era who weren't technically card-carrying Communists, but who attended meetings where Communists were present and lost their livelihoods as a result. In Sarah Palin's case, you have an official of the Alaskan Independence Party identifying her as a member to a reporter, another member of the party identifying her as a member on a videotape made at a secessionist conference, her husband's membership in the party, and a taped speech that she gave in honor of a conference of the Alaskan Independence Party. If Barack Obama had attended Black Panther Party meetings or Revolutionary Communist Party meetings, we wouldn't be having these hair-splitting discussions about whether he was officially a member. Instead, it would be the end of Obama's political career.

I'm sick and damn tired of neo-McCarthyites telling me how much more patriotic they are than me. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, Sarah Palin hasn't been questioned enough about her links to the Alaska Independence Party.
posted by jonp72 at 6:57 AM on September 24, 2008 [9 favorites]


there is something incredibly ironic and indicative of the madness of Conservatives that they would complain about baseless smears and innuendo when for the last year and a half they have run a campaign based on smears and innuendo.
posted by duality at 6:59 AM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


You can attend events put on by a political party, even though you are not officially registered with that party.

You can also be a member of a party — paying dues, carrying the card — while being registered with a different party affiliation. I don't see how this membership claim "doesn't square with official records" at all.
posted by enn at 7:16 AM on September 24, 2008


What jonp72 said: "Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, Sarah Palin hasn't been questioned enough about her links to the Alaska Independence Party."

Is Todd Palin now, or has he ever been a member of....

Again, as jonp72 points out, a Republican can have been a Bircher, a member of the CCC (the Council of Conservative Citizens, a Southern successor to the KKK), have ties to the white supremacists, or Dominationists, and it's apparently no big deal.

Obama sits on a non-profit board with a fellow professor who, when Obama was nine years old, was a member of the Weather Underground, and we're supposed to be up in arms.

Succession is serious business, all the more so in the family of someone who might suddenly become President of the United States.
posted by orthogonality at 7:30 AM on September 24, 2008 [2 favorites]


And since when is supporting succession a bad thing?

Since her current party made such an issue of wearing flag pins?
posted by inigo2 at 7:30 AM on September 24, 2008


And since when is supporting succession a bad thing?

It makes your COUNTRY FIRST signs seem kind of stupid.
posted by turaho at 7:50 AM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


And since when is supporting succession a bad thing?

1865. 1861.

ftfy.
posted by mwhybark at 8:01 AM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


What? No SSN?
posted by Balisong at 8:27 AM on September 24, 2008


delmoi writes "Ethan S. Winner. did create the video, and says he took it down because his family began receiving threatening phonecalls. He also said he wasn't paid by anyone to do it - it was a side project."

Yeah, the whole smear idea is a little silly, like claiming sexism anytime anyone criticized Palin. But Winner making this video on his own is a bit fishy, too. I know there's a concerted effort to put the worst stuff out there virally on both sides, and that's fine as far as it goes, but this is where it gets slippery, where you have someone like Winner involved claiming to act entirely on his own. That very well could be true, but it looks bad, and it's easier to believe that someone making a really negative viral ad might be getting campaign money. That's the implication from the blog, and I think that's where most of the "outrage" is coming from, that it might not be done cleanly. Of course, probably this will remain a minor story and nothing will come of it, but even if it does, McCain has a lot to answer for, himself.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:34 AM on September 24, 2008


I'm here so I can say Sarah Palin. Wow, that's bizarre. I felt a mysterious quaking in my loins as I typed that. Let me try it again:

John McCain.


Ooh. I'm done now.
posted by Dr-Baa at 8:45 AM on September 24, 2008


I'm a Democrat, but if I was on record going to a NAMBLA meeting just to "see the other side of the argument...

Whoa... the two sides are "Democrat" and "NABMLA?"

And you guys STILL can't win any elections?!
posted by rokusan at 8:46 AM on September 24, 2008


At least he's got good taste in cartoons.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:49 AM on September 24, 2008


So, as a rabid foaming at the mouth liberal, I couldn't care much less if Palin was involved in an Alaskan succession group. Is this attack ad supposed to target her base? Won't they just write it off as an evil liberal lie?
posted by Shutter at 8:53 AM on September 24, 2008


And since when is supporting succession a bad thing?

Well, if it's coming from someone who could be in a position to facilitate it...

Under Bush we lost a city, under McCain/ Palin (and the secessionists First Dude), we could lose a state?
posted by quin at 9:53 AM on September 24, 2008



Does anyone NOT want to secede from the US right now?
posted by bukharin at 9:57 AM on September 24, 2008


Sigh, I don't know anymore.... It's like everyday something new comes out about the McCain/Palin campaign that just shows more skeletons in their closets. And all they do is say it is liberal lies. It's like looking at someone so evil and corrupted that you can just tell that they are bad. However people in America still believe that they are good Christian, patriotic, moral people. Anymore it seems that you could have a live tv thread of palin sucking off the devil and McCain watching and the idiotic part of the population wouldn't change their minds and vote Obama. Also the rich part of the population wouldn't care either because they are stealing too much money from the American tax payers to want anything to change. Only thing we got left is hope that more than 60% of the population votes for Obama... I say over 60% because it would be very FAWKING hard to hide/destroy/loose/not count 10% of the votes in America.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 9:58 AM on September 24, 2008




sandraregina: Mr. Shackleford's blog post was nearly unreadable. Way too long and rambling, and filled with circumstancial 'evidence' and supposition. But all I could do was skim it. Is there any actual substance in that obfuscatintg stream of conciousness?

I see what you mean. There's a lot of speculative footwork, that unfolds like most faux relevant conspiracy theories in a way that what becomes truly compelling, and entertaining, is just bearing witness to just how deeply the author pompousness is going to casue him to disappear up his own a**.

I read the Jawa piece before I found the Campaigns & Elections article by David Metz that clearly connecting McCain as a spokesperson (vendor?) for Winner & Mandabach, the PR firm RS has fingered as being behind the Palin smear viral through Ethan Winner, so it has that knowledge quite a ring for me. But this is still unfolding in a way that signals it might get even more interesting:

Michelle Malkin mentioned "Dr. Shackleford's" piece on Fox News this morning and yet there is still no realization or acknowledgment that McCain is the person most clearly connected to Winner & Associates.

It stands to be quite the spectacle of back pedaling when that kernal of knowledge gets through the collective right wing fog of triumph. It is the veritable ship of fools celebrating on a vessel which unbeknown to them has a massive gash in its hull.
posted by Skygazer at 12:04 PM on September 24, 2008


And since when is supporting succession a bad thing?

It makes your COUNTRY FIRST signs seem kind of stupid.


No. Just vague.
posted by srboisvert at 12:07 PM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


Losing Alaska wouldn't be that bad. It would open up the door for Northern California to break away from Southern California without having to redo all those flags.
posted by Big_B at 12:11 PM on September 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm rather fond of Secession myself.
posted by oncogenesis at 12:39 PM on September 24, 2008


Does anyone NOT want to secede from the US right now?

A bunch of my ancestors tried that whole secession thing out. It really ain't all that it's cracked up to be.
posted by Atreides at 12:44 PM on September 24, 2008


OK, wow. I just watched the Michelle Malkin interview on Fox. I was actually slightly impressed when the Fox interviewer asked Malkin why, if Palin had no links with the Alaska Independence Part, she was on video addressing their convention and Malkin just brushed it off saying "In her capacity as a public official she did a lot of things".

Wow. Just... thats it? And no follow up from the interviewer? Thats OK? They went to great lengths to say over and over that the claim that she was a member of the AIP was debunked, they never mentioned her husband's membership in it, fine. But here, point blank, "yeah, she did address them as governor, so?"

The Governor is on video saying shes "Delighted to welcome you to the 2008 Alaskan Independence Party Convention" and that's just insignificant? No big deal? Just... come on.
posted by Reverend John at 12:59 PM on September 24, 2008


(Just a note to anyone who saw the comment I left earlier with the "personal" information of Rusty Shackleford before it got deleted. It was actually bogus information on the fictional character linked several times in this thread. The mods thought it was real, and apparently in an effort to avoid the appearance that it was ok to do a detailed data dump, even if it referred to a fictional character, they decided to delete it.)
posted by Dave Faris at 1:01 PM on September 24, 2008


So here's her actual video to the AIP.

She talks a lot about the Alaskan constitution, not so much about the US Constitution. "I share your party's vision of upholding the constitution of our great state." "We have a great promise to be a self sufficient state." Wishes them "Good Luck", urges them to "Keep up the good work".
posted by Reverend John at 1:28 PM on September 24, 2008


orthogonality: "Again, as jonp72 points out, a Republican can have been a Bircher"

Funny you should say that. Here's The John Birch Society explaining why a PR photo of Sarah Palin from her City Council days that shows her reading a piece of JBS propaganda is not proof that she's a Bircher but rather demonstrates just how mainstream they are these days. And to tie the ends of our mobius strip together they add this little tidbit at the bottom:
UPDATE 9/22/08: The Jawa Report indicates this smear may have links back to the PR firm that one David Axelrod owns. The same David Axelrod that is Barack Obama's chief media strategist.
posted by scalefree at 1:52 PM on September 24, 2008


Dr. Shackleford responds:

Weaknesses like, you know, the FACT that it was exactly who we said it was who produced the video?

Or weakness, like, professional PR firm not above working for Republicans? I'm not sure how that invalidates anything we said. Not. A. Thing.
Rusty | Homepage | 09.24.08 - 6:01 pm | #



My follow up:

Well you got Winner right, but in an effort to railroad Obama with a viral video based on your delusional paranoia of "Chicago style political sleaze," you missed the nose right in front of your face: That McCain and Winner have had a very mutually profitable relationship in the past and McCain, himself, was in essence a Winner subcontractor/vendor of sorts.

How did you miss that? Wouldn't be that you have completely slanted agenda?

What else are you missing about McCain and Palin in your hatred towards and fear of an Obama Presidency? What other lies are you comfortable telling yourslef and passing on to ther rabid cohort who fears a Democratic win and will stoop to any level to see it stopped? Who else's personal information and family photos and Craigslist ads you going to publicize in your vindictive and desperate quest??

posted by Skygazer at 3:25 PM on September 24, 2008


And since when is supporting succession a bad thing? How else will those us from the coasts stop being oppressed by middle America? United all we seem to do is torture each other.

Well, it's one of those things that's fine when conservatives do it, but not when liberals do it. If Michelle Obama had been a member of a secessionist (or, let's say, anarchist) group at any time in her history, that would have been a much, much bigger deal than they're making out of Todd Palin's association - you remember the implication that she wasn't proud of her country, because of one statement she made about being proud of her country, but I guess not using precise enough language? Can you imagine if they were able to pin something like a history of membership in outspoken anti-American (literally) political groups on her? They'd be destroying her daily, and the press would be all over it. It would be worse than Rev. Wright.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:37 PM on September 24, 2008


I don't understand how anyone can call it a "smear" to repeat the statement of the AIP head that Sarah Palin was a member.

Yes, as it turns out, the AIP head was wrong. Todd Palin was a member, Sarah Palin was just an active fan.

But in general, if the head of a political party says someone is a member, it's not necessarily bad journalism or bad opposition research to assume that they have some grounds for saying so, is it?
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:40 PM on September 24, 2008




« Older Help   |   17 Years Later Here We Are Entertain Us Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post