?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Distractions?

Ted Stevens was found guilty on all counts in his federal corruption trial. It's the first felony conviction of a sitting Senator since 1981 (New Jersey Democratic Senator "Pete" Williams in the ABSCAM sting).

So does that mean that Sarah Palin (who enthusiastically supported his Gravina Island Bridge earmark until it became a symbol of abuse) is palling around with corrupt politicians?

Speaking of Palin, apparently she's the one spreading distraction about her wardrobe. She keeps repeating the claim that the clothes aren't hers, neatly ignoring the fact that the RNC's purchase of said clothes was a violation of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act regardless of whether she was going to keep them or not.

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
yourbob
Oct. 27th, 2008 09:43 pm (UTC)
If in Palinland hanging out with terrorists means you're a terrorist, then obviously hanging out with criminals makes you a criminal.

Oh wait. She's already known to be a criminal.
bovil
Oct. 27th, 2008 09:58 pm (UTC)
When she was nominated for Veep, her connection to Stevens was heavily downplayed, and the meme started circulating that the investigations of him were partly because of her reformist agenda.

That hasn't turned out to be the case. Palin is much more closely associated with Ted Stevens than Obama is with Bill Ayers.

From 2003-2005 she was on the board for "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group dedicated to training Republican women for government service.

She was challenged Stevens to come clean, but as soon as he was indicted she held a press conference with him to show she wasn't abandoning him politically.
howeird
Oct. 27th, 2008 10:15 pm (UTC)
Palin is back to wearing her own clothes. I didn't expect her to know the RNC was breaking the law by buying the clothes, but McCain sure should have. Which makes me wonder anew if the law really intended to exclude all clothes, or just clothes you intended to keep after their costume role was through.

As for Ted, if everyone shunned their indicted friends, "innocent till proved guilty" would have no meaning. I'm sure Ted assured her he was innocent. At the trial he appeared to believe he had done nothing wrong. It'll be interesting to see what happens next. As Governor, isn't she the one who appoints his replacement?
bovil
Oct. 27th, 2008 10:19 pm (UTC)
Which makes me wonder anew if the law really intended to exclude all clothes, or just clothes you intended to keep after their costume role was through.

I believe it intended to exclude all clothing purchases because:
  1. Clothing is too easy a conversion
  2. It's all about preventing abuse and closing loopholes, and this is an obvious loophole to prevent
esprix
Oct. 28th, 2008 02:41 am (UTC)
I heard the verdict today. Is it just me, or is the ratio of Republican vs. Democrat downfalls a little skewed on the conservative side?
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )