Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Lawrence O'Donnell interviews author Frank Bailey.
I really, really like Frank Bailey. It is easy to get infatuated, and he isn't the only one in this world who has suffered "blind allegiance" towards a person or cause. Some people have criticized Bailey, that he should have included some other things about Sarah that were in the emails. I totally disagree! This is a memoir! To mention the "trivial" things, would have discredited him. HOWEVER, this book PAVES the way, so people's minds can ACCEPT future revelations/exposure about Sarah without quickly calling it character assassination and running to her defense. Truly, the best chess game move!
I think it is the PERFECT book. It's not written for "us" who already know Stupid Sarah, it's for the "believers", hopefully, they will begin to realize they were duped like Bailey. Sending out information from the emails, would only get the Blind Bots in attack mode and not helpful. We ALREADY know this stuff. The BOTS have refused to accept it, but they are more likely to, with Bailey's confessions. Thank you Mr. Bailey for your courage.
He comes across as totally real. He's going to be a difficult person to dismiss as "having an ax to grind."
In fact, the one feeling I get as I read his book is one of profound sadness and disappointment. It doesn't read like "oh Sarah's horrible!" book. It reads like "gosh, I'm so sorry I wasn't strong enough or wise enough to be true to myself."
For those of you swooning over Frank Bailey, I can understand it. He's coming off very well in these interviews and as a previous commenter pointed out, he will be difficult to characterize as having an axe to grind. That said, if he was talking about anything other than what a loon Sarah Palin is you may have a different take. He's a big-time social conservative and pro-lifer, and I expect your reaction might be a bit different if he were talking about those issues.
Yes, Bailey is a pro-lifer, social conservative.. he has a right to his own beliefs like I do mine. I grew up in the sixties in CA and had a "free spirit", questioned any institution and their brainwashing dogma. My younger sister grew up in similar churches as Bailey and "conformed". She has been a registered Republican all her adult life... but voted for Obama/Biden instead of McCain/Palin. Some pro-lifer/social conservatives can look at the big picture. One day, more of them will see that we are living in a global community and our challenges are greater than the small stuff they expound.
I don't see Dunn as a 'recognized' writer and therefore the media is just seeing it as 'another book' and not anything of interest to put on air.
The difference with Bailey -- he worked with Palin -- was on the inside.
We know who Dunn is, but in the general public - Dunn?? Dunn who?? What has Dunn done?? -- he's just not a name recognized and therefore goes under the radar. I anticipated that all along from the time he said he was writing as when he started writing blog posts on Palin, my thought was 'who is he?'
People have to look outside the box and realize, not everyone is on the same train and everything we think is good will get the 'earth shattering' media attention.
Dunn may have got some attention when he first spoke he was writing a book, but then he delayed, delayed again and again --reminds me of the email release.
I have no problem that someone who holds different views than mine and is a member of the opposing political party is working alongside progressives/liberals/democrats to reveal Palin. There have been many republicans who have spoken out against her in the past and admitted Palin does not have the knowledge or the temperament for high office. If the media had done their job and exposed the truth about Palin, the republicans would not have to criticize their own.
I give Baily credit for speaking out against a powerful force in his own party.
8:46am. I have no doubts that Bailey is a social conservative and pro-lifer. While I don't agree with his views, isn't his book even more credible and telling since he is such a pro-lifer and social conservative? Sarah's ideology fits perfectly with his belief system.
Thank you Sir, so much, for FINALLY telling the truth.
May your words reap "crop failure" for all the negative seeds that the Palins have sown since John McCain got desperate and lost his mind/integrity in 2008 . . . trampling all over his crafty slogan, "Country First."
...soon-to-be released documentary by highly acclaimed BAFTA winner Nick Broomfield. His film already has the Murdoch people atwitter with accusations of demonizing Sarah Palin, which can only mean one thing: He must have gotten to the truth.
This book may make some traction with the conservative Christians who are under the misguided belief that Palin is a true believer. It's being published in a Christian subsidiary of a book publisher, correct?
However, all this will probably be undone by Joe McGuinnis's book, which sounds like it's shaping up to be a manifesto about what a rightwing Christian warrior Palin is. He honestly believes SHE believes she's a Christian.
In short, any good that Bailey's book accomplishes in casting some doubt in the minds of some rightwing Christians is going to be undone by McGuinnis's book that puts these Christians on the defensive.
The books aren't going to take her down. Nothing is going to take her down but live video, audio, or truly damning emails that catch her in an illegal act. I have no doubt she hasn't performed such acts, but it's proving to be quite the challenge to get it on the record.
For those who bought the book by Bailey, how big of a letdown is it now?
Until somebody who is in the know stands up and spills his/her guts on Palin's deception, this is nothing more than bait to sell a book. A waste of money and a waste of time.
This is what is known as a propaganda film, and Palin isn’t the first politician to use the medium to alter public perception. A propaganda film is one that is produced with the goal of persuading an audience of a point. One of the most infamous examples of propaganda is Leni Riefenstahl’s film Triumph of the Will (1935), which chronicled the 1934 Nazi Party Congress and was commissioned by Adolf Hitler. But Americans have been in the game too, with Frank Capra’s Why We Fight series (1942–1944), which was commissioned by the government to convince the public that it was time to go to war. Even the New Deal people got in on the propaganda game, with Pare Lorentz’s The Plow That Broke the Plains (1936). Presidential nominees often have documentaries shown about them at political conventions, but they’re not commissioned or supervised by the candidate or nominee, though they are usually put together by the political party.
A pure documentary captures reality; it doesn’t seek to impose a point of view. Ian Aitken explains in the Encyclopedia of the Documentary Film a documentary “is intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction or maintaining a historical record.” Palin’s film is meant to distort reality and history (this is an undeniable fact as they reportedly avoid rather large problems for Palin like her guilty verdict in Troopergate) , and present it from the advantageous, one-sided point of view of the subject. And that would be fine, if a little disingenuous as it appears to be a third party documentary, if she were willing to take questions from the media. But instead, this docuganda is her attempt to explain herself and shape the narrative about Sarah Palin for the media.
That interview gave me chills thinking about how Alaska actually entrusted our state to a lying unethical sociopath and her devious husband. They ran Alaska like their own little fiefdom where they made their own rules and skirted or disregarded the law. Now she wants to do the same thing to our country. And maybe to the world.
I have to agree with Louis CK when he described Sarah as the early Hitler.
Question for people who have read Bailey's book: Did he say that Sarah didn't trust Todd in Lawrence's interview (or that she didn't trust Bailey)?
Not sure that anything short of Franklin Graham shunning Sarah would convince Palinbots that she's anything but Sarah (nee Joan) of Arc.
The GOP nominee won't be decided until next year around this time, so there's plenty of time for the plates she's spinning to start crashing to earth (taking her with them).
Bailey to Hannity discussing Sarah: Why aren't you trying to vet these leaders? We have to have a strong leader on the right. You don't want to vet them, Sean?
Hannity: We're just out of time tonight because of breaking news.
I just saw Frank Bailey on Hardball. In this and another interview he said Sarah is smart and that she was " a normal Alaskan" before being tapped for the VP slot. So is he saying she was "normal" when they were doing all their dirty deeds in AK?
In the Dunn book he shows her pathology from early on.
No, Anon11:20am, "Blind Ambition" has not been a "letdown". Too bad the FBI is not putting her in bracelets this very instant, but Bailey is another testimony of her CHARACTER, and he is a christian, pro-life, white-male voice.
In an indirect way, he lets us know how this wretched woman was able to fool so many people. From page 114: Palin got up from behind her desk. She was dressed in a navy blue turtleneck (sweater) and leather boots that went past her knees, like thigh highs..
Well needless to say the male consulted was impressed. My g-d, her tricks are SO blatant. Too bad Andrew Halco didn't wear a muscle shirt and a pair of pirate boots during the campaign against her (rolls eyes).
To the Katie Couric question, Frank responds that she reads the Alaskan papers. And in the end, Chris says that she should.
Hello - knock, knock, anyone home -- regular citizens know that anyone in a position of holding a government position who makes laws for their state citizens -- i.e. Governors, Legislators and more importantly, a friggin whore like Palin accepting a VP nod -- they better be friggin' be reading outside their state borders. Talk about being small minded - both on the part of Bailey and Matthews.
I have to say -- I've liked a number of interviews Bailey has done, but this one when he basically refers to that the gov should only be concerned with new of the state -- he truly is a fucking moron -- no different than Palin.
Just cancelled my order of his book. He cqn go fuck himself sideways.
Thanks for the clarification. That's what I thought Bailey meant, but I thought, "No one could be THAT cruel, to say that your husband couldn't be trusted while he was standing next to you."
OMG. They're both crazy, the whole family is crazy. I'm positive that Sarah will crash and burn before the end of the year, and when she does, she won't have any friends/supporters. Justly deserved.
3:07 PM, don't cancel your book just yet. I think you misunderstood.
Katie Couric had asked Sarah what she reads and Sarah couldn't or wouldn't answer. Bailey explained that Sarah did read Alaskan newspapers but she was too ashamed to admit it. Sarah thought it wouldn't be good enough to tell the truth so she gave some rambling bullshit response to Couric.
Also, I think Sarah didn't want to mention the Anchorage Daily News (ADN), our biggest paper. She had a growing grudge against ADN and she probably wanted to punish ADN by specifically not naming it. Interesting to think that exacting retribution could have been a higher priority than responding believably during a national interview. She holds grudges forever and I've never heard her admit that she reads ADN. I finally heard her name a few other Alaskan newspapers that she reads (over a year after the question was first posed by Couric).
I believe that both Bailey's and Chris Matthews' point was that Sarah shouldn't have been ashamed of who she was, should have presented herself as such, and let the chips land where they may. Instead, she tried to fool everyone into thinking she was widely read and knowledgeable on worldly issues. She didn't think she was good enough and her decision to give a lame evasive answer proved she was right. Everyone could see right through her bullshit in that instant and knew she was a liar trying to coverup her deficiencies.
Lying and exaggerating are second nature to Sarah and she let everyone know it on national TV.
4:11 PM asked If Todd wasn't to be trusted why was he allowed to conduct so much state business?
I think Sarah didn't care about state business so she willing delegated it to Todd, her worshipers, and her unqualified friends (all pro-life). She simply did not want to do the work associated with being governor (or mayor). If something went wrong, she always blamed someone else.
She did care about how things might effect her reputation. She wanted to enhance herself and was all about looking good. She spent her time buffing up her image and masking the truth.
I understand the 'readings' of Palin but when listening to the interview, I heard them as saying is acceptible and should be that she just read 'state' papers. It was a WTF moment!!
Joy Behar had a great interview with Frank also. Joy does not like Sarah at all/
ReplyDeleteFrank has not written enough to take her down... too bad..
ReplyDeleteSarah will weather this storm.
Wish Frank would send ALL emails to wikileaks..
Saying she did not go to scheduled appointments and was vindictive is not enough.
I agree with ano @ 8:08 - send ALL evidence to Wikileaks, and hope that they take the ball and run!
ReplyDeleteI really, really like Frank Bailey. It is easy to get infatuated, and he isn't the only one in this world who has suffered "blind allegiance" towards a person or cause. Some people have criticized Bailey, that he should have included some other things about Sarah that were in the emails. I totally disagree! This is a memoir! To mention the "trivial" things, would have discredited him. HOWEVER, this book PAVES the way, so people's minds can ACCEPT future revelations/exposure about Sarah without quickly calling it character assassination and running to her defense. Truly, the best chess game move!
ReplyDeleteI think it is the PERFECT book. It's not written for "us" who already know Stupid Sarah, it's for the "believers", hopefully, they will begin to realize they were duped like Bailey. Sending out information from the emails, would only get the Blind Bots in attack mode and not helpful. We ALREADY know this stuff. The BOTS have refused to accept it, but they are more likely to, with Bailey's confessions. Thank you Mr. Bailey for your courage.
ReplyDeleteHe comes across as totally real. He's going to be a difficult person to dismiss as "having an ax to grind."
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the one feeling I get as I read his book is one of profound sadness and disappointment. It doesn't read like "oh Sarah's horrible!" book. It reads like "gosh, I'm so sorry I wasn't strong enough or wise enough to be true to myself."
Frank will be on Inside Edition today.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.insideedition.com/
OT I look forward to the end of the day to see if Ailes cut Palin loose.
ReplyDeleteI didnt like this interveiw, no follow up by Lawerance. Didnt feel like he liked Bailey. But glad he let him get his word out there via his show. -E
ReplyDeleteCan anyone tell me why Dunn is not being interviewed about his book also?
ReplyDeleteFor those of you swooning over Frank Bailey, I can understand it. He's coming off very well in these interviews and as a previous commenter pointed out, he will be difficult to characterize as having an axe to grind. That said, if he was talking about anything other than what a loon Sarah Palin is you may have a different take. He's a big-time social conservative and pro-lifer, and I expect your reaction might be a bit different if he were talking about those issues.
ReplyDeleteAn optimistic view of GOP / Palin:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.opednews.com/articles/Rise-and-Fall-of-GOP-Solip-by-Robert-S-Becker-110525-307.html
Unfortunately Lawrence had to cut the Bailey interview short because Michael Moore had more to say than time alloted.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, Bailey is coming across as articulate, humbled, ashamed, and honest about his ethical rebirth.
Frank sounds sincere to me, like he honestly regrets his actions. But the interviews need to be more in-depth, not enough is coming out about her.
ReplyDeleteO/T (or not) re:Psychopaths in high places:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/2011/05/21/136462824/a-psychopath-walks-into-a-room-can-you-tell?sc=fb&cc=fp
Yes, Bailey is a pro-lifer, social conservative.. he has a right to his own beliefs like I do mine. I grew up in the sixties in CA and had a "free spirit", questioned any institution and their brainwashing dogma. My younger sister grew up in similar churches as Bailey and "conformed". She has been a registered Republican all her adult life... but voted for Obama/Biden instead of McCain/Palin. Some pro-lifer/social conservatives can look at the big picture. One day, more of them will see that we are living in a global community and our challenges are greater than the small stuff they expound.
ReplyDeleteLink to Joy Behar's show with Frank Bailey, which I think was good too.
ReplyDeletehttp://joybehar.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/24/ex-palin-aide-i-would-never-vote-for-sarah/
B 8:45
ReplyDeleteI don't see Dunn as a 'recognized' writer and therefore the media is just seeing it as 'another book' and not anything of interest to put on air.
The difference with Bailey -- he worked with Palin -- was on the inside.
We know who Dunn is, but in the general public - Dunn?? Dunn who?? What has Dunn done?? -- he's just not a name recognized and therefore goes under the radar. I anticipated that all along from the time he said he was writing as when he started writing blog posts on Palin, my thought was 'who is he?'
People have to look outside the box and realize, not everyone is on the same train and everything we think is good will get the 'earth shattering' media attention.
Dunn may have got some attention when he first spoke he was writing a book, but then he delayed, delayed again and again --reminds me of the email release.
I have no problem that someone who holds different views than mine and is a member of the opposing political party is working alongside progressives/liberals/democrats to reveal Palin. There have been many republicans who have spoken out against her in the past and admitted Palin does not have the knowledge or the temperament for high office. If the media had done their job and exposed the truth about Palin, the republicans would not have to criticize their own.
ReplyDeleteI give Baily credit for speaking out against a powerful force in his own party.
8:46am. I have no doubts that Bailey is a social conservative and pro-lifer. While I don't agree with his views, isn't his book even more credible and telling since he is such a pro-lifer and social conservative? Sarah's ideology fits perfectly with his belief system.
ReplyDeleteHe's a good talker. It's a shame all these interviews are so short.
ReplyDeletePresumably now that he has done a few and the producers can see he makes good TV he will get a longer chance to talk.
LOL. Bailey says that Palin had Lasik surgery but still wears glasses to look more intelligent!
ReplyDeleteI hope Andree can force Bailey to release all his emails.
ReplyDeleteThank you Sir, so much, for FINALLY telling the truth.
ReplyDeleteMay your words reap "crop failure" for all the negative seeds that the Palins have sown since John McCain got desperate and lost his mind/integrity in 2008 . . . trampling all over his crafty slogan, "Country First."
Kudos Mr. Bailey, and may God show mercy.
+++
http://www.politicususa.com/en/
ReplyDeletesarah-palin-star-shrill
...soon-to-be released documentary by highly acclaimed BAFTA winner Nick Broomfield. His film already has the Murdoch people atwitter with accusations of demonizing Sarah Palin, which can only mean one thing: He must have gotten to the truth.
Laura and Brad have a new post about Mrs. BabyBelly ShapeShifter at LauraNovakAuthor.com
ReplyDeleteI didn't like Behar's interview w/Frank...she made it all 'gossipy' sounding vs the direction Frank has taken his book.
ReplyDeleteKajo: "Unfortunately Lawrence had to cut the Bailey interview short because Michael Moore had more to say than time alloted.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, Bailey is coming across as articulate, humbled, ashamed, and honest about his ethical rebirth."
Kajo, you're here! Tell us about your avatar used by somebody--the Toki guy who released Mansewer's emails--on FB. How did that happen?
This book may make some traction with the conservative Christians who are under the misguided belief that Palin is a true believer. It's being published in a Christian subsidiary of a book publisher, correct?
ReplyDeleteHowever, all this will probably be undone by Joe McGuinnis's book, which sounds like it's shaping up to be a manifesto about what a rightwing Christian warrior Palin is. He honestly believes SHE believes she's a Christian.
In short, any good that Bailey's book accomplishes in casting some doubt in the minds of some rightwing Christians is going to be undone by McGuinnis's book that puts these Christians on the defensive.
The books aren't going to take her down. Nothing is going to take her down but live video, audio, or truly damning emails that catch her in an illegal act. I have no doubt she hasn't performed such acts, but it's proving to be quite the challenge to get it on the record.
For those who bought the book by Bailey, how big of a letdown is it now?
ReplyDeleteUntil somebody who is in the know stands up and spills his/her guts on Palin's deception, this is nothing more than bait to sell a book. A waste of money and a waste of time.
TheYoungTurks-Former Top Aide To Sarah Palin Writes Tell-All Book
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHspzO8E0J8
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/palin-whistleblower-defends-tell-all-book
BAILEY: Sean let me ask you a question. Why aren't you and the folks on this network talking about her honesty.
This is what is known as a propaganda film, and Palin isn’t the first politician to use the medium to alter public perception. A propaganda film is one that is produced with the goal of persuading an audience of a point. One of the most infamous examples of propaganda is Leni Riefenstahl’s film Triumph of the Will (1935), which chronicled the 1934 Nazi Party Congress and was commissioned by Adolf Hitler. But Americans have been in the game too, with Frank Capra’s Why We Fight series (1942–1944), which was commissioned by the government to convince the public that it was time to go to war. Even the New Deal people got in on the propaganda game, with Pare Lorentz’s The Plow That Broke the Plains (1936). Presidential nominees often have documentaries shown about them at political conventions, but they’re not commissioned or supervised by the candidate or nominee, though they are usually put together by the political party.
ReplyDeleteA pure documentary captures reality; it doesn’t seek to impose a point of view. Ian Aitken explains in the Encyclopedia of the Documentary Film a documentary “is intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction or maintaining a historical record.” Palin’s film is meant to distort reality and history (this is an undeniable fact as they reportedly avoid rather large problems for Palin like her guilty verdict in Troopergate) , and present it from the advantageous, one-sided point of view of the subject. And that would be fine, if a little disingenuous as it appears to be a third party documentary, if she were willing to take questions from the media. But instead, this docuganda is her attempt to explain herself and shape the narrative about Sarah Palin for the media.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/sarah-palin-star-shrill
That interview gave me chills thinking about how Alaska actually entrusted our state to a lying unethical sociopath and her devious husband. They ran Alaska like their own little fiefdom where they made their own rules and skirted or disregarded the law. Now she wants to do the same thing to our country. And maybe to the world.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Louis CK when he described Sarah as the early Hitler.
Question for people who have read Bailey's book:
ReplyDeleteDid he say that Sarah didn't trust Todd in Lawrence's interview (or that she didn't trust Bailey)?
Not sure that anything short of Franklin Graham shunning Sarah would convince Palinbots that she's anything but Sarah (nee Joan) of Arc.
The GOP nominee won't be decided until next year around this time, so there's plenty of time for the plates she's spinning to start crashing to earth (taking her with them).
I ordered one copy from Amazon, but could not resist buying a second copy this morning from my local Kroger grocery store.
ReplyDeleteIt is a small thing, but the larger font size of "Blind Allegiance" is making it easier to read than "Lies".
Bailey to Hannity discussing Sarah: Why aren't you trying to vet these leaders? We have to have a strong leader on the right. You don't want to vet them, Sean?
ReplyDeleteHannity: We're just out of time tonight because of breaking news.
I just saw Frank Bailey on Hardball. In this and another interview he said Sarah is smart and that she was " a normal Alaskan" before being tapped for the VP slot. So is he saying she was "normal" when they were doing all their dirty deeds in AK?
ReplyDeleteIn the Dunn book he shows her pathology from early on.
Don't know quite what to make of it.
No, Anon11:20am, "Blind Ambition" has not been a "letdown". Too bad the FBI is not putting her in bracelets this very instant, but Bailey is another testimony of her CHARACTER, and he is a christian, pro-life, white-male voice.
ReplyDeleteIn an indirect way, he lets us know how this wretched woman was able to fool so many people. From page 114: Palin got up from behind her desk. She was dressed in a navy blue turtleneck (sweater) and leather boots that went past her knees, like thigh highs..
Well needless to say the male consulted was impressed. My g-d, her tricks are SO blatant. Too bad Andrew Halco didn't wear a muscle shirt and a pair of pirate boots during the campaign against her (rolls eyes).
Frank Bailey of Hardball:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#43173891
To the Katie Couric question, Frank responds that she reads the Alaskan papers. And in the end, Chris says that she should.
Hello - knock, knock, anyone home -- regular citizens know that anyone in a position of holding a government position who makes laws for their state citizens -- i.e. Governors, Legislators and more importantly, a friggin whore like Palin accepting a VP nod -- they better be friggin' be reading outside their state borders. Talk about being small minded - both on the part of Bailey and Matthews.
I have to say -- I've liked a number of interviews Bailey has done, but this one when he basically refers to that the gov should only be concerned with new of the state -- he truly is a fucking moron -- no different than Palin.
Just cancelled my order of his book. He cqn go fuck himself sideways.
Arapaho415:
ReplyDeleteI am just a few pages into Bailey's book and he's already said flat out "Sarah said don't tell Todd anything, he can't be trusted".
He mentions her lack of trust in Tawdry Tawd/others several times, and he provides context and sometimes has the proof in Sarah's own writings.
GoingBrogue
ReplyDelete3:13 PM
Thanks for the clarification. That's what I thought Bailey meant, but I thought, "No one could be THAT cruel, to say that your husband couldn't be trusted while he was standing next to you."
OMG. They're both crazy, the whole family is crazy. I'm positive that Sarah will crash and burn before the end of the year, and when she does, she won't have any friends/supporters. Justly deserved.
If Todd wasn't to be trusted why was he allowed to conduct so much state business?
ReplyDelete3:07 PM, don't cancel your book just yet. I think you misunderstood.
ReplyDeleteKatie Couric had asked Sarah what she reads and Sarah couldn't or wouldn't answer. Bailey explained that Sarah did read Alaskan newspapers but she was too ashamed to admit it. Sarah thought it wouldn't be good enough to tell the truth so she gave some rambling bullshit response to Couric.
Also, I think Sarah didn't want to mention the Anchorage Daily News (ADN), our biggest paper. She had a growing grudge against ADN and she probably wanted to punish ADN by specifically not naming it. Interesting to think that exacting retribution could have been a higher priority than responding believably during a national interview. She holds grudges forever and I've never heard her admit that she reads ADN. I finally heard her name a few other Alaskan newspapers that she reads (over a year after the question was first posed by Couric).
I believe that both Bailey's and Chris Matthews' point was that Sarah shouldn't have been ashamed of who she was, should have presented herself as such, and let the chips land where they may. Instead, she tried to fool everyone into thinking she was widely read and knowledgeable on worldly issues. She didn't think she was good enough and her decision to give a lame evasive answer proved she was right. Everyone could see right through her bullshit in that instant and knew she was a liar trying to coverup her deficiencies.
Lying and exaggerating are second nature to Sarah and she let everyone know it on national TV.
4:11 PM asked If Todd wasn't to be trusted why was he allowed to conduct so much state business?
ReplyDeleteI think Sarah didn't care about state business so she willing delegated it to Todd, her worshipers, and her unqualified friends (all pro-life). She simply did not want to do the work associated with being governor (or mayor). If something went wrong, she always blamed someone else.
She did care about how things might effect her reputation. She wanted to enhance herself and was all about looking good. She spent her time buffing up her image and masking the truth.
@ 5:09
ReplyDeleteGood point and most likely true but I wish that could be articulated in these interviews. Hopefully it's pointed out clearly in the book.
Anon 4:59
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post.
I understand the 'readings' of Palin but when listening to the interview, I heard them as saying is acceptible and should be that she just read 'state' papers. It was a WTF moment!!