Originally Posted by mydo
My google search is not special. My google search tells me that the trouper that Palin tried to fire tazed a 10 year old, which is exactly what I said. Flash forward to the VP debates: Bernard Shaw, "Governor Palin did you abuse your power when you tried to have that trouper removed because of personal reasons?" Paliin, "No I had that trouper removed because he used a government issued tazer gun on a 10 year old". Who's going to win that one?
It's not a matter of "who wins" in some glib-off in a debate. She's being investigated, there's appears to be pretty compelling evidence that she lied about pressuring the trooper's boss to fire him, and she had clear personal motivation to do so. Plus, the guy she selected to replace the guy she fired turned out to be a sexual harasser. I can't see where any of this is much of an upside, and "but the trooper she wanted fired tazed a kid in addition to divorcing her sister which is why she fired his supervisor and lied about it and hired a sexual harasser instead" doesn't have much of a ring to it, does it?
I expect members here that want to discuss Palin and the trouper to know the basics. Think about what you wrote though. You think voters should get their information about Palin from McCain? Are you insane? If someone is going to vote for someone I think at a minimum they should do 8 to 16 hour worth of their own research.
My point being that one might have expected McCain to nominate someone that didn't leave us all scratching our heads and scrambling for Google just to get any sense at all of who the hell the nominee is.
I think 8 to 16 hours grossly overstates the necessary time investment, however: given the brevity of the woman's time on the public stage, I would think that 20 minutes with a smoke break would turn up all that is to be known, at least at the level of Google. If I were the McCain camp, I would be very uneasy about whether or not my "not around long enough to have left evidence of anything too heinous" gambit was going to work out.
As always I'm an Obama voter and vote Democrat. I'm just not Hopenotized like the rest. I see elections as strategic and have an ability to put myself on the other side of the isle. When people cry "scandal" I look to see how the other side will deflect it.
I don't think you have to be "hopenotized" (that's a hideous neologism, by the way, you should be savagely beaten for using it), to recognize that nominating a complete unknown currently under investigation for abuse of power carries some downside. Of course the right will have "answers" to such concerns, that's a given. That doesn't make them effective or persuasive answers.
thread to see the "slam dunk" attitude.
Don't really want to read the whole thing, but at a scan, really not seeing it. I see a lot of "weak choice, doesn't help" though.