Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
June 19, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama ScandalWatch
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Scott Whitlock's blog
  • Bozell Column: Censoring the 'Anti-Gay' Viewpoint
  • Martin Bashir, Who Compared Conservatives to Hitler, Now Decries Nazi Comparisons
  • Bob Herbert: There Would Be Tons of Outrage on Left if Bush-Cheney Pursued Obama’s Policies
  • Liberal College Students Sign Petition to Make Spying on Fox News Legal
  • ABC Hypes Obama Family's 'Beautiful' Vacation, Avoids Any Hint of Extravagance
  • Piers Morgan Defends the Nanny State: 'People Need Nannying'
  • Liberal Pundit Marc Lamont Hill Condemns Photo of Obama Holding ‘Military Style’ Watergun
  • New Liberal Study 'Lends Credence to Conservative Charges' of Bias; Dramatic Media Tilt Toward 'Gay Marriage'

Martin Bashir Parrots Attacks on 'Vicious,' 'Paranoid,' Sarah Palin, Questions Her Faith

By Scott Whitlock | May 24, 2011 | 16:43

A  A
Scott Whitlock's picture

An eager Martin Bashir on Tuesday parroted vicious claims by a former Sarah Palin staffer and repeated attacks questioning the sincerity of the ex-governor's Christian faith. The MSNBC host offered almost no skepticism or tough questions. Instead, he chided, "Love thy neighbor? Not in Sarah Palin's playbook. Her former aide tells all."

In a tease for the segment, Bashir intoned, "Vindictive attacks, conspiracy, paranoia, and a single-minded ambition." (No, this wasn't a reference to Keith Olbermann, the volatile ex-anchor of MSNBC.)

The daytime host's guest Frank Bailey, the author of Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin, appeared and received almost total support for the idea that the former vice presidential nominee is a faux Christian. Bahir derided, "Sarah Palin has repeatedly traded, as you know, on her Christian faith...What did you think of her desire for vengeance and that desire to be vindictive?"

The anchor explained that the book "casts real doubt on her personal faith and conduct." Bashir, who has proclaimed his own Christian faith, questioned Palin's: "And elsewhere in the book, you now say 'I never saw Sarah read or carry a Bible on any of our frequent travels, nor did she cite verses.'" He pressed, "So is this claim of Christianity a complete charade?"

The only hint of a tough question came when Bashir wondered, "Why did you stay with her for three and a half years if you find these things so repugnant now?"

A transcript of the May 24 segment, which aired at 3:16pm EDT, follows:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

3:00

MARTIN BASHIR: Love thy neighbor? Not in Sarah Palin's playbook. Her former aide tells all.

3:13

BASHIR: Next, character assassinations, coordinated attacks. An eye for an eye? A former aide confesses and it's all in a day's work for Sarah Palin.

3:16

BASHIR: Vindictive attacks, conspiracy, paranoia, and a single-minded ambition. It's all part of daily life as a Sarah Palin staffer, according to a scathing new tell-all. Some 60,000 e-mails are the basis for a book in which a former aide portrays Palin as incompetent and ethically compromised during her tenure as Alaska governor. And perhaps most pertinently the book casts real doubt on her personal faith and conduct. Frank Bailey is the former staffer behind the book entitled Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin and I'm delighted to say that he joins us now. Good afternoon, sir.

FRANK BAILEY: Thank you for having me.

BASHIR: Sarah Palin has repeatedly traded, as you know, on her Christian faith. In your book you write love thy neighbor? Turn the other cheek? Forgiveness? These New Testament concepts were not part of Sarah's Old Testament temperament. Both eyes for a eye was the rule and vanquishing enemies became a goal." What did you think of her desire for vengeance and that desire to be vindictive?

BAILEY: You know, she was obsessive about it. She- She- It was difficult because I pushed so hard to help her in that, and I mean a lot of the book is a confession about some of the things that I was involved in that I really, truly regret. I have had to go back to folks and apologize to them for some of my actions, tearing down their character. But she had to, she had to put her image up as this perfect person.

BASHIR: And so she believed that being vindictive was politically the right thing to do?

BAILEY: I don't know that she believed it, but she it certainly is how she governed. It is how she ran her campaigns. It is how she lived.

BASHIR: It's hard to equate that with her claims of Christian faith. And elsewhere in the book, you now say "I never saw Sarah read or carry a Bible on any of our frequent travels, nor did she cite verses.? We didn't hold prayers before meals or prior to meetings." So is this claim of Christianity a complete charade?

BAILEY: You know, Martin, I don't believe it's a charade, I just believed she strayed from those beliefs. It's hard for me to hear her say things-

BASHIR: But, Frank, every very time she makes a speech she says she's prayed about something. And in your book, you say you never saw her pray and you never once heard her read scripture. So, is it a charade?

BAILEY I'd like to believe not. I'd like to believe she strayed from that and I believe she's using that as a mantle to ingratiate people out there. I mean, when I see her say stuff in the media like "WTF" about Obama's words, that is hard for me to hear. That's not the person I signed on to help in 2005 and 2006 and fought so hard to help.

BASHIR: Why did you stay with her for three and a half years if you find these things so repugnant now?

BAILEY: It's a great question, but I vested so much of myself. You know, some people describe it as a bad relationship where you get in and you pour so much of yourself-

BASHIR: Were you star struck?

BAILEY: Maybe. Maybe, possibly.

BASHIR Because in the book you said you would have cleaned toilets for her if she asked.

BAILEY: We did. We did clean toilets.

BASHIR: So, were you completely overwhelmed by her charisma?

BAILEY: You know, her charisma was moving, there's no doubt but we did anything and everything. You know, Blind Allegiance is a tale about someone, myself, who worshipped someone who did not deserved to be worshipped. You know, in my beliefs, worship should belong to God, no the a person. And the sad thing is, she wanted to be worshipped. You know, she wanted people out there to believe she's perfect and not real.

BASHIR: Are those- Are those characteristics, do you think, that are appropriate for a president?

BAILEY: I believe our leaders should be strong, honest, and principled, and we detail in Blind Allegiance that she is not any of those things with very specific examples, a lot of times her own words. I do not believe she would be a good leader. I do not want to see her lead a party, I do not want to see her lead a country.

BASHIR? Really? You believe that so strongly?

BAILEY: I do. Absolutely.

BASHIR: And you believe that for what reason?

BAILEY: For what I saw firsthand, and, again, for some of the things I was involved in that I took part in in the book. I mean, she from her office had me digging up any kind of dirt on somebody who was an advocate in the causes she said she believed in, some of these Christian causes. She had me overturning sex records, sex offender records, you know, criminal records, any kind of dirt I could turn over on this specific person. What kind of person is going, to with the FBI and the IRS at their beckon, what kind of leader is that going to make them?

BASHIR: Very briefly, Frank, ave you heard back from her since you published your book?

BAILEY: I have not. No.

BASHIR: I guess that's hardly a surprise.

About the Author

Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Scott Whitlock on Twitter.
  • 2012 Presidential
  • Frank Bailey
  • Martin Bashir
  • Sarah Palin
  • Martin Bashir
  • MSNBC
  • Scott Whitlock's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop George Soros

Comments

The Truth Is

Submitted by HardRightTurn on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:48pm.

You could substitute the name of Obama for Sarah Palin in this piece and be more truthful.

Fear and loathing in Obamerica

To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html

  • Login to post comments

Yes, but if Obama's name was

Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:50pm.

Yes, but if Obama's name was in their instead of Palin's we would have never even heard of this person. Or, more likely, the press would be doing everything possible to discredit the "author".

What a difference an Obama makes!!!!

  • Login to post comments

I Can't Wait

Submitted by HardRightTurn on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:55pm.

The Obama tell-all-books are going to be incredible.

================================
The Leftway: Shared Sacrifice
The Rightway: Shared Prosperity
================================

To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html

  • Login to post comments

Again, Palin can't win

Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:59pm.

She can't win. If she spouted off Bible verses and carried her Bible she would have been attacked for it. Remember how George Bush was mocked for his spirituality? Now that someone says she doesn't
 carry a Bible and quote Bible passages she's not a Christian.

What a farce the media is.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

What timing Ms Rad*

Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:14pm.

LOL...within 11 mins, 5 people posted the same thought.

  • Login to post comments

Cajun is confused again*

Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:54pm.

----blind allegiance

----vindictive attacks

----Christianity a charade

----wanted to be worshipped

----digging up dirt on people

Are you sure he's not talking about Obama?

  • Login to post comments

Oh my...

Submitted by NeoKong on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:06pm.

I bet dozens of people saw this.

Follow me on Twitter
  • Login to post comments

never saw

Submitted by grammajane on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:37pm.

The "aide" never saw her pray?? Prayer is usually a personal time for most normal people. They prefer not to have an audience. Maybe this aide and and this radical host could go to Alaska and window peek to watch the Palin family pray. Yea, the media will have this creep on every show again bashing Palin. Their jealousy is coming through, loud and clear, of this very popular lady.

  • Login to post comments

Christian Faith

Submitted by wingnut55 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:24pm.

Non believers always set higher requirements for being a Christian than the Bible. He never saw or heard her pray, oh, is that a requirement for true Christians? That others need to see you pray. Jesus said that the Pharisees loved to be seen praying in public. But Christians were to pray to their Father in secret, and their Father who sees in secret will award them openly. This just one example, but I find that the requirements for being a Christian are far harder in the World's eyes than what the Bible says.

  • Login to post comments

"Non believers always set

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:59pm.

"Non believers always set higher requirements for being a Christian than the Bible"

Bashir, Bailey, and Palin are all Christians, so there's no issue of "non believers," here. Of course, Christians shouldn't be questioning one anothers' faith, either, but Bailey--the fellow who has written the book--makes clear he doesn't think Palin's faith is a put-on, so that's no longer an issue, either.

  • Login to post comments

Bashir is a self-absorbed

Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:47pm.

(or perhaps absorbing) used diaper-wipe who couldn't report a square news story to save his pathetic little life. I'm sure he's quite proud of his diploma from the Colombia School of Broadcasting and Cocaine Distribution.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

  • Login to post comments

"An eager Martin Bashir on

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:53pm.

"An eager Martin Bashir on Tuesday parroted vicious claims by a former Sarah Palin staffer and repeated attacks questioning the sincerity of the ex-governor's Christian faith."

Contrary to your characterization of Bashir as "eager," the transcript makes pretty clear Bashir only "parroted" Bailey's claims by directly reading and indirectly summarizing them--he doesn't endorse them himself. Repeating them is not only appropriate when interviewing Bailey on this matter, it is a necessary precondition for doing so, if anyone in the viewing audience is to have any idea what they're talking about. And Bailey doesn't question "the sincerity of the ex-governor's Christian faith." He just says Palin failed to live up to it (he says repeatedly that he DOESN'T believe she's a phony). Getting Bailey to clarify that is the point of most of the questioning on this matter, and in getting that clarification, Bashir did Palin a service.

(This is only an issue in the first place because Bailey worked as a hatchet-man for Palin, who ran an EXTREMELY corrupt regime in Alaska, then, after she quit, found Jesus and started having serious regrets about what he'd done.)

  • Login to post comments

Telling questions

Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:34pm.

Asking twice if Palin's Christianity is a complete facade is indeed questioning Palin's faith. So even if Baily isn't questioning her sincerity Bashir most certainly is.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

"Asking twice if Palin's

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:41pm.

"Asking twice if Palin's Christianity is a complete facade is indeed questioning Palin's faith."

No, he's making an effort to get Bailey to clarify his criticism on the matter, which is what Bailey did.

  • Login to post comments

Classicliberal2

Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:09pm.

No, repetition of a question like that is the way the left creates urban myths. Like the Tea Party being racist.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Extremely corrupt huh?

Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 7:03pm.

Please define and provide sources.

  • Login to post comments

The Los Angeles Times

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:17pm.

The Los Angeles Times reported (24 Oct., '08) that over 100 of Palin's appointments to state jobs in Alaska, including all of her appointments to the Natural Gas Development Authority, the Board of Public Accountancy, and the Local Boundary Commission, went to people whose only "qualification" was that they were Palin campaign contributors (Frank Bailey, who wrote the book that sparked the present discussion, was one of Palin's hatchet-men, and got caught up in one of these appointments--an investigation decided he had acted improperly). Palin handed out millions of dollars in industrial development loans to businesses of, in the words of the Times, "questionable public value." Palin used her position to carry out vendettas against perceived enemies. The most notorious example is her crusade against a state trooper who was going through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister, involving a custody battle. Palin tried to engineer his firing, and actually did engineer the firing of the Public Safety Commissioner for failing to fire the fellow (Bailey got caught up in that one, as well). Palin and her underlings were aware of the lack of ethics and questionable legality of their activities--the New York Times (14 Sept., '08) reported that "the governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records."

And so on.

  • Login to post comments

Link, please? Also, you don't

Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:23pm.

Link, please?

Also, you don't seem to mind so much when our president does all of those things, though, do you? Hmmmmmm...............

  • Login to post comments

You can use Google as well as

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:30pm.

You can use Google as well as I.

  • Login to post comments

So use it

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:46pm.

Thats proper etiquette around here.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Classicliberal 2

Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:26pm.

And how many of these violations was Palin found guilty of?

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Legal technicalities aren't

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:32pm.

Legal technicalities aren't the point with most of this. That it's corrupt as hell and stinks to high heaven is.

  • Login to post comments

~"Innocent till proven guilty"

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:38pm.

is a "legal technicality" to liberals when the defendant is a conservative. LOL
"Presumed guilty and sentenced to hard labor while we manufacture the evidence" is the preferred method for libs.

If Palin were guilty of any of those things there's no way she wouldn't have been hung from the yardarm. Pardon me, "hanged".

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

Filling state positions with

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:48pm.

Filling state positions with campaign donors and doling out to them huge amounts of public money--and that this was done is, in no way, a controversy or even something anyone disputes--is corrupt as hell. It shouldn't be legal, but when we're discussing corruption, whether or not it technically is or isn't doesn't matter. These are evils in and of themselves, and you and everyone else reading these words understand that, even if you do find it more convenient here to make a show of pretending otherwise.

  • Login to post comments

In other words...

Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:59pm.

She did nothing illegal, and you have no proof that those people were not qualified.

When you talk about things basically being inherently right or wrong you're getting into murky waters Mr. Liberal. I feel that way about gay marriage but that never counts to a liberal.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Exactly Rad. She did nothing

Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:59pm.

Exactly Rad. She did nothing wrong, but classic lib doesn't like it so it MUST be corruption.

Sad.

  • Login to post comments

It doesn't matter if they're

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:33pm.

It doesn't matter if they're "qualified"--and yes, a lot of them certainly were NOT--and it's not a question of legal technicalities: They are campaign contributors. Giving them high-paying state jobs and massive government contracts is the very definition of corruption. You wouldn't tolerate that behavior from any Democratic administration, nor should you. When public officials behave that way, New Orleans drowns while the horse-breeder sits around with his thumb up his ass and absolutely no idea what to do.

  • Login to post comments

Cajun some help please...

Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:51pm.

We have another ignorant lib here who needs to get the facts on Katrina and you are the expert!

So now qualified people cannot be appointed to government positions if they've made campaign donations? You're all about restricting freedom of speech I see.

As far as democrats and government corruption have you heard of unions, GE, Jeffery Imelt?

Learn something.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Oh its the sto' bought troll again*

Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:01pm.

I assume "the horse breeder" he is referring to is Bush. This Bush caused Katrina disaster meme is old and has been trashed numerous times especially by the people of La.

In fact, Boudin is probably the one who knows best the identities of the corruption and incompetence of the Levee Board and New Orleans politicians. Decades of corruption, self interest and a Democratic Governor is the reason  New Orleans went under. But this troll doesn't want nor care for the truth. PDS does not allow for honest assessments of issues. Sto' boughts are paid to spew same ole,same ole.

So Ms Rad, I have met this one before... Its just a suggestion, but

Don't feed the trolls

  • Login to post comments

I think he's referring to

Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:10pm.

I think he's referring to Michael Brown - the then head of FEMA. Other than that, I didn't really read much of what he wrote

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

"I think he's referring to

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:38am.

"I think he's referring to Michael Brown - the then head of FEMA"

Yes, but the fact that none of the others even knew that speaks directly to their own "expertise" on the matter.

  • Login to post comments

That's insulting troll*

Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:34am.

We here in La are very familiar with Mr Brown. In fact just today he was making the rounds with the media hyping his new book. The one where he trashes everyone including Democrats in order to save himself . He was disgraceful. He spent days giving interviews while Katrina hovered. Local word was that he kept his staff busy trying to find him the best places to eat in Baton Rouge.

Many of us here at NB have "expertise" on many issues. We just dont waste the time nor effort with trolls.

And just to let you know how we feel here. George Bush was in Lafayette La today. He spoke to a full house and got a "hero's" welcome.

  • Login to post comments

Fact is, Blanco was so unpopular

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:33pm.

With the folks here in Louisiana, that she didnt even try running for a second term. New Orleans drowned because a dimwited controlled city, cared more about graft to get re-elected then the levee's. Any other assessment is false, Bush certainly had nothing to do with that.

Blanco, and Nagen thought they could play politics with the folks in New Orleans, and the levee broke. Their wager lost, but at least they never found their humility,,,,,

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Name them

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:04pm.

And their affiliation to Palin.

Fact is Palin is required to fill positions as Gov by law. Who she appoints is subject to scrutiny by the State legislators.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Well, I'm not going to

Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:40pm.

Well, I'm not going to research all your propoganda, but I figure debunking one of your lies is good enough:

The Wall Street Journal reported:

“The so-called ‘Troopergate’ incident began with Governor Palin’s removal of Walt Monegan as commissioner of public safety. Today, investigator Steve Branchflower vindicated the governor by finding that she acted within her constitutional authority to remove ‘at-will’ employees.

“However, along with several members of the Legislative Council, we question how Mr. Branchflower reached the conclusion that Governor Palin abused her power with respect to Trooper Mike Wooten. That finding required speculation and assumptions on Mr. Branchflower’s part and could not be supported solely on the basis of the evidence that he collected. We agree with the comments made that Alaskans should consider the report in total rather than relying solely on the findings.”

  • Login to post comments

You aren't going to find a

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:02pm.

You aren't going to find a "lie" from me. You've just offered one yourself, though:

"The Wall Street Journal reported"

...and what follows. You aren't quoting any "report" in the Wall Street Journal. You're quoting a statement that was released by Bill McAllister, Palin's communications director. ABC quotes the same statement:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6004368&page=1

The damning conclusions of the report are exactly as I relayed them.

  • Login to post comments

So what do you have to suggest

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:07pm.

The personal account above is false? Your and other opinions dont count

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

*SIGH* Ok, let's try again.

Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:08pm.

*SIGH* Ok, let's try again. This time I'll provide the link so they'll be no "misunderstandings", something you won't do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal

"The Branchflower report did not recommend a criminal investigation or sanctions.[3] Under Alaska law, the state's Personnel Board, not the Legislature, decides whether a Governor has violated the ethics laws.[3] On November 3, 2008, the bi-partisan Alaska State Personnel Board released the findings of its own investigation which concluded that Palin did not violate any ethics laws."

So they found that she did something wrong, but declined any kind of punsihment? Yeah, that sounds REAL true. Did you happen to catch the part about the BI-PARTISAN Personnel Board releasing its findings that she didn't violate any ethics laws????

Keep floundering, it's great entertainment.

  • Login to post comments

Instead of phony sighs, why

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:39pm.

Instead of phony sighs, why don't you just concede you were wrong in misrepresenting the words of a Palin mouthpiece as the words of a report in the Wall Street Journal?

"Did you happen to catch the part about the BI-PARTISAN Personnel Board releasing its findings that she didn't violate any ethics laws????"

That's just the thing, mate: The personnel board is NOT a "bipartisan" affair, or even a "BI-PARTISAN" one. It's made up of three members, all of them Republican appointees. Appointed by the governor. In this case, Palin had retained two appointees of former corrupt governor Frank Murkowski and had reappointed the third herself. By law, no more than two members of the board are supposed to be of the same party. That's where the "bipartisan" thing is supposed to come in. In practice, there was one registered Republican and the other two were allowed to be present by virtue of their having declined to declare a party preference. One of these "non-partisan" ones had even contributed to Palin's campaign. It's no wonder, then, that Palin had tried to steer the investigation toward the personnel board, and away from the legislature, which is independent. This Personnel Board cleared her of all wrongdoing.

Again, this is something no one, here--not a single person--would tolerate from a Democratic administration (nor should they).

Palin did everything she could to stonewall the real investigation, that conducted by the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council is NOT a bipartisan body. It was made up of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats. A totally lopsided Republican majority. Their findings--that Palin had behaved improperly, had violated the law, and had tried to cover it up--were unanimous.

Readers can decide which of the two carries more weight.

  • Login to post comments

Funny how the Palin hating media

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:42pm.

Has missed this completely, but you, and only you seem to give it any credence? Apparently you have sage 3 PDS

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

classicalliberal2

Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:50pm.

Did you even look at the source you were referred to? It's wiki. Not a conservative site. And they
 call the Alaska Personnel Board bipartisan. 

 

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

And I explained both why it's

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:02am.

And I explained both why it's called that, and why it isn't that. See how that works?

  • Login to post comments

"Instead of phony sighs, why

Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:55pm.

"Instead of phony sighs, why don't you just concede you were wrong in misrepresenting the words of a Palin mouthpiece as the words of a report in the Wall Street Journal?"

I did no such thing. I quoted the Wall Street Journal that printed exactly what I posted. Please don't change the subject.

Palin didn't "steer" anything. Apparently, again, you missed an important point: "Under Alaska law, the state's Personnel Board, not the Legislature, decides whether a Governor has violated the ethics laws."

Get it? The Personnel Board NOT THE LEGISLATURE decides, NOT THE LEGISLATURE. Your delusional fantasies are indeed comical, but not surprisngly, they lack fact and truth.

As far as Bipartisan, the Merriam-Webster definition of bipartisan is:

"involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties "

You'll notice that it doesn't mention anything about the same number being from each party. The personnel board was bipartisan. The definition of the word doesn't change because you dislike the odds.

Try and keep up.

  • Login to post comments

"I did no such thing. I

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:34am.

"I did no such thing. I quoted the Wall Street Journal that printed exactly what I posted."

You said "the Wall Street Journal reported...", except you weren't quoting a Wall Street Journal report--you were quoting a Palin mouthpiece. He's clearly identified as such on the very Journal site from which you cut-and-pasted it:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/10/alaska-governors-office-respond...
It's there for everyone to see; lying about it further won't make it go away, and I can't even imagine what you think it's accomplishing.

"Please don't change the subject."

No, see, you don't get to lie about something like that with impunity, then pretend as if I'm the skunk at the garden-party for pointing it out.

"Palin didn't "steer" anything."

When it became clear this was going to be a serious matter, Palin worked tirelessly to stonewall the legislature's investigation and to get it, instead, into the hands of the Personnel Board. She agreed to cooperate with the legislature in order to avoid being subpoenaed, then refused to cooperate, then even filed a complaint against herself (!) to the Personnel Board in an effort to get them to conduct the inquiry. She had a lopsided Republican majority on the Legislative Council, yet she wanted the matter before the Personnel Board, where there were no Democrats at all.

"Apparently, again, you missed an important point: 'Under Alaska law, the state's Personnel Board, not the Legislature, decides whether a Governor has violated the ethics laws.'"

That is of absolutely no consequence. The legislature wrote the law. They are charged with oversight of the executive branch. They decided they had the authority to conduct the investigation. That they can't actually prosecute anyone for violating it is of no consequence.

"As far as Bipartisan, the Merriam-Webster definition of bipartisan is:

"'involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties'

"You'll notice that it doesn't mention anything about the same number being from each party. The personnel board was bipartisan. The definition of the word doesn't change because you dislike the odds."

The board was NOT "bipartisan." There were no Democrats. All three were Republican appointees, retained and, in one case, reappointed by Palin herself; they got around the law requiring having no more than two of any one party by having two appointees decline to list any party preference. One of the two "non-partisan" ones was a Palin campaign contributor. Their "conclusions" were exactly what could have been expected from such a body. And, again, neither you nor anyone else here would tolerate that sort of thing from ANY Democratic administration (nor should you).

And, still again, the Legislative Council's very damning conclusions were adopted unanimously, by 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Readers will decide which conclusion is more credible.

  • Login to post comments

classicliberal2---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:01pm.

on board with classic liberal bullshit.

You are not going to pick up any converts here just because you happen to believe the crap you spew with what you believe to be righteous vigor.

Ultimately, you will go down in flames with all the rest of the lib trolls who came here and proceeded spinning their asses off with liberal tripe.

Their, and your, posts, have been read, noted as, and for, the crap they are, and contain, and then properly discarded onto the dung heap so exemplified by your Messiah's Chicago style politics.

Might want to consider ramping up your PDS vitriol, there, classicliberal2.

You're slacking.

MD

 

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

I'm not looking for

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:36am.

I'm not looking for "converts." I'm looking for intellectual honesty. And in a few days here, I haven't found any at all. Maybe that will eventually change. I'd like to hope, anyway.

  • Login to post comments

"I'm not looking for

Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:12am.

"I'm not looking for "converts." I'm looking for intellectual honesty." Seriously? Ah yes - but ONLY on this subject, correct? Not as a rule. Reality stays the same, it's our perceptions that change, and it looks to me as if you are attempting to change perceptions, not engage in debate. btw - you are doing it wrong.

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan
  • Login to post comments

"I'm not looking for converts", says classicliberal2 ---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:24am.

"I'm looking for intellectual honesty."

Absolutely CLASSIC liberal line of BS.

Typed out in a post by probably close to 90% of the liberal trolls who find their way onto these threads.

Absolute, total, complete, bullshit.

classicliberal2 is here to push his ideology, by hook or by crook, and to no doubt bad mouth Sarah Palin every chance he gets.

Phony, lying, piece of crap liberal.

NTTAWWT.

Comic relief is a good thing.  :o)

MD

 

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Intellectual honesty? That's

Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:28am.

Intellectual honesty? That's a laugh considering you possess neither of those qualities. Pretty telling that you demand it from others though. You've already been proven a liar, quit while you're behind.

Try the DailyKos, they peddle the same kind of boring, fabricated talking points that you're spewing.

  • Login to post comments

Witch cases were legit?

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:41pm.

None, that how many. Fact is, unions and media outlets funded these lawsuits.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

That's how it works on MSNBC, I guess...

Submitted by lunchbox on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:52pm.

Here's an MSNBC host and his guest questioning whether Sarah Palin is Christian. The rest of the time the MSNBC hosts are filled with anger that some question whether President Obama is a Christian.

  • Login to post comments

The trap is the way the

Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:33am.

The trap is the way the playing field is designed. NOBODY who has been in politics is "clean" by dint of just operating within the confines of that playing field.

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan
  • Login to post comments

This guy is nothing but a

Submitted by fatboy on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:48am.

This guy is nothing but a terrorist pimp.

  • Login to post comments

The overdose of irony....

Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:40am.

...is Martin Bashir salivating over a book written for MONEY supposedly exposing a move by Sarah Palin's resignation from the Alaska governor's chair for MONEY. Martin is up to his usual brain-addled "gotcha" attempts, albeit with a self-serving author who only wants to sell the book. What enabling behavior....Martin gets his political orgasm bashing Sarah Palin while the former Palin aide gets to hawk his book. Martin probably needed a cigarette and cuddling after that. Most of his guests just roll over and watch a late night show.

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • Romney's revenge (Avik Roy @ NRO)
  • Relax, the Arizona voter registration ruling was narrowly drawn by Scalia (Hans von Spakovsky)
  • Snowden loses his moral authority with dangerous leaks (Rothman @ Mediaite)
  • Rapper Lil' Wayne stomps on American flag (Rare)
  • Apple releases information about data requests from NSA, other agencies (LA Times)
  • Five myths about privacy (Solove @ Washington Post)
  • Polls show Americans more libertarian on pot, gay marriage, guns (Barone)
  • Single men are opting out of society thanks to suffocating liberalism (Right Wing News)
  • What if Superman had to join a union? (Steven Crowder)
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: The Superman of Dads and Grads
Cal Thomas's picture
Cal Thomas
Cal Thomas Column: Broadcast Nets, Ailes Is What's Good for You
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: If the GOP Falls for 'Immigration Reform' Ruse, It Deserves to Die
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Let People Sell Their Organs to Sick, Needy Recipients
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Anthony Weiner's Underage Girl Problem
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Audit the Man of Steel?!
more cartoons
  • O’Reilly: Obama Could Be Impeached If Evidence Shows Intel Agency Read Emails Without Warrant
  • Christie: Obama’s ‘Charm Offensive Should Have Started January 2009’; ‘Bit Late in Dating Game’
  • Howard Stern to Jimmy Fallon: ‘How You Got The Tonight Show I Don't Know. You Barely Beat Craig Ferguson’
  • National Media Skip Over Charges U.S. Ambassador Abused 'Minor Children'
  • Rand Paul: ‘I Want to Go From 5% of the African-American Vote to At Least 20-25%’
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use