Why does the WH argue with Palin?

1. 91

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   Why does the administration continue to "get in the mud" with Sarah Palin?? I think it makes them look bad! What do you guys think about this?
   
   http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2 … -oil-spill

   replyreport
   1. 57

      leebertteaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Good question. They seem to get very defensive when she makes a charge. There can only be one explanation, and that is she has struck a nerve in revealing things that the administration would like to leave undisclosed or at least, not have it talked about. This administration has promised to be the "most transparent" of any in history and they have actually been exactly the opposite. Even the press that embraced Obama is beginning to wonder when they will have access to the President. Really, no unscripted press conference in almost a year?

      replyreport
      1. 91

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with this. Is Obama in hiding? The press corps isn't happy. At least Bush was willing to face the press. What happened to the transparency??

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         There can be only one explanation and that one explanation must be total nonsense?

         replyreport
         1. 57

            leebertteaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's another possible explanation however unlikely.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               You mean you have an even more ridiculous assertion to present?
               
               Please share.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  leebertteaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay here is a couple of quotes from the liberal media:
                  
                  Cokie Roberts: “The oil is gushing and we’re being lied to by how much oil is gushing…and the administration has now named a commission..Now this is what you do when you really don’t have anything else to do: you name a commission…That’s not going to stop the oil.”
                  
                  Donna Brazile: “One of the problems I have with the [Obama] administration is that they’re not tough enough…They are waiting for BP to say, ‘oh we have a new plan to stop the oil leak.’ They need to stop it, contain it, clean it up and try and help us conserve our coastal wetlands.”
                  
                  Now maybe Palin doesn't know anything about drilling even though her husband worked in the industry and she was governor of a state that drills for oil, but I'd be willing to bet she knows a bit more about it than Gibbs or Obama.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Bill Millerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Not if you ask Gibbs or Obama!

                     replyreport
                  2. 65

                     Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     If Palin knows how to stop the oil she shouldn't keep it a secret. I get the feeling that nobody in BP or the government knows how to do it. This may be the first time this has happened in a well 5,000 feet deep. They strike me as playing it by ear.

                     replyreport
   2. 86

      livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think they're painting her as the voice of the Republican Party. If people believe that, that's not good at all for the GOP.

      replyreport
   3. 64

      Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Cause they can?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Cause they are not confident in their own BS. 
         
         Or, they are establishing Why they should control the media in our country for the greater good of America, and of course in reality their message and policy that they wish to have accepted as gospel for the greater good of America.....oops, gospel is perhaps too religious a word.

         replyreport
2. 80

   Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

   Well, I think they have the right to defend themselves. If they said nothing other would be saying that what she is saying must be true.
   
   And someone like her criticizing the Democrats for being too close to big business? How can socialists do that?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Originposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You do make a good point. Saying nothing could mean that your guilty of whatever it is.. at least in some peoples eyes. On the same token, saying something back could just fuel the fire as well as damage your reputation. Politics is and probably will always be, a tricky subject.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Who are you referring to as a Socialist?  ???

      replyreport
3. 91

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   I think it would be better if they ignored her.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Remember when John Kerry was "swift boated"?  His initial strategy was to take the high ground and ignore it, but that didn't work and it ended up severely damaging his candidacy.  Democrats learned a valuable lesson from that, although it took them awhile.  Now, they are a lot less likely to ignore attacks from the right, no matter how ridiculous those attacks are.

      replyreport
   2. 69

      rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The problem of ignoring allegations of lying and mismanagement is that if the lies go unanswered they soon become accepted as real.
      
      "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods."
      
      Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X
      
      Take it from the master of propoganda.

      replyreport
4. 60

   Originposted 13 years ago

   I think it's one of those arguments where both parties want "the final say". So you'll see it go around, and around, and around. She just doesn't strike me as a leader, so I hope she doesn't run for president.

   replyreport
5. 52

   greyfox26posted 13 years ago

   The administration has much to answer for but says little on questions they cannot refute. They are neither transparent or honest and seek only to further their agenda at any cost. Sarah has every right to criticize and challenge them, they have been free riding far too long. The press isn't doing it someone must and Sarah is just the lady to do it. Love her or hate her she has
   guts.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ah, the "Sarah Palin has guts" myth.  Yeah, she's so brave that she quit her job in Alaska because she couldn't handle the heat. 
      
      Yes, Sarah has every right to criticize and challenge anyone she wants to, but she shows her true lack of character when she whines about being criticized and challenged in return.  She has turned being a "media victim" to an art form.

      replyreport
6. 61

   Ohmaposted 13 years ago

   I do not care who it is all politicians have something to hide. Obama maybe a little more than others but all of them are crooks and liars.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      We have to have hope that one or two are not, but not much hope for the rest.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      agreed!

      replyreport
      1. 57

         leebertteaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I suspect you'll get many to agree, but knowing this what can we as a people that is responsible for electing our leaders do to change this? Surely we can not just accept things as they are.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The fault in the government is in the Bush Interior Department which is charged with preventing these kinds of catastrophes and in the failure of the Obama Interior Secretary, Salazar to move fast enough to clean house and make the needed changes.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               leebertteaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Salazar is blaming BP, and even Obama took some share of the responsibility yet you still want to blame Bush?

               replyreport
7. 76

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   YES! They had a long time to corrupt everything and make the whole attitude....eh, who cares? Let business do whatever it likes.
   Do you think all of those people were fired when Obama took over?
   It takes a long time to change attitudes...even in measly jobs.
   The whole way of No regulation, do what you want--nobody really takes this seriously, can't change overnight.
   
   And Palin should just stfu and talk about stuff she knows, like telling everybody how to live and how to get rich quick.
   
   GOD--I'm sick of her!!!!

   replyreport
   1. 57

      leebertteaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      How much longer? It's been 16 months and still Obama doesn't get any blame for when things go wrong? Funny, he won the Nobel Peace prize after 8 weeks in office, I would think that by now he'd deserve some culpability. How long does it take to provide transparency for instance? Why doesn't he have an open press conference? What is he waiting for?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         For god's sakes leeb--you saw the article I posted saying this one is on Obama!@ He gets blame. But so does Bush. And really if you wanna know: Ray-Guns Ronnie!
         Laizze-faire attitude: tax breaks for business: lax regulation: and of course Big Bucks to take to smooth the way.
         But don't forget, Cheney put his oil-loving people into the MMS, along wth other areas of the gvt. And according to Seymour Hersh, they still report back to him.
         And don't forget Haliburton was part of that rig.
         
         And you know, there is a man named Christopher Story who has a web site called Global Analysis....he says Obama was threatened by Bush Sr.
         "Go along or die"....
         
         We don't know what's going on or why he doesn't have a press conference, or why his happened in the 1st place.
         We don't know anything about what goes on....
         All we know is nature is going to be the one to suffer for this and we STILL don't get it!
         MORE oil rigs? Even now?
         No accountability...ever.
         For anything.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Bill Millerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            No, Bush gets no blame and neither should Obama, accidents happen and that is all there is to it.

            replyreport
         2. 57

            leebertteaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Accountability? That lies with you and me. Do you use gasoline? Do you heat your home? Do you cook? Use electricity? You want to stop drilling? Stop using energy! Let us all return to an agrarian society where we all own our land and grow our own food and work those fields with animals. Better still, turn the clock back further where we live off whatever the land has to offer.
            Since not too many of us are willing to go back to that way of life we will need to make some compromises. Drilling is one of them. Unless and until we allow nuclear power plants to be fast tracked until such time as we can develop solar.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               If you're going to make money (lots and lots and lots of it) pulling out a natural resource from the ground and selling it to people, then you are fully responsible when that process of pulling out a natural resource goes awry, either by accident or through negligence (doesn't matter!), and causes damages.
               
               And if you're responsible for the cleanup and damages, it will behoove you to minimize acts of negligence, and to have a very, very, very fast and effective response when disasters under your watch occur.
               
               Right?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  If our government wants us to listen to the First Lady on dietary changes, let millions and more be spent on her new-found project or statement of self, doncha think at the very least there ought to be federal inpectors on board these rigs?  Like about 5 minutes after Obama took office......rather than giving BP even more carte blanche?  Just wondering.

                  replyreport
         3. 61

            KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'm proud of you for pointing out what you have to us all about the politics of Obama and BP, etc.... gives me hope.  That's not to say I think Obama should be blamed for this unchecked oil spill.  But, I was disturbed by the article you published a portion of and his connections to BP via campaign donations.
            
            We have government regulators everywhere, I don't understand why there is not a federal employee charged with oversight on every rig, everywhere.

            replyreport
8. 59

   flread45posted 13 years ago

   The government doesn't know how to stop the flow of oil and they hire individuals who haven't seen mud before.
   The government does know how to give taxpayers money away though.
   They blame the oil company for the leak,BUT remember the government had to approve the paper work to start drilling offshore in the first place.
   Most government officials think oil comes out of a can instead of the ground anyway.

   replyreport
9. 61

   Bill Millerposted 13 years ago

   Why does the WH argue with Palin?
   
   
   Because they are easily distracted.

   replyreport