The Department of Law Will Save Her — More Palin Follies

Filed in National by on July 7, 2009

So the Quitta from Wasilla is all over the news this AM and finds herself answering a question from an ABC interviewer wanting to know why she would step down because of so-called ethics investigations knowing that this doesn’t let up in higher office…..the reply?

But as for whether another pursuit of national office, as she did less than a year ago when she joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House, would result in the same political blood sport, Palin said there is a difference between the White House and what she has experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the “department of law” would protect her from baseless ethical allegations.

“I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we’ve been charged with and automatically throw them out,” she said.

Department of Law?

Department of LAW?

This, my friends, is the person that John McCain thought would be able to run the government of the United States. A woman who has NO IDEA what the government of the United States looks like, much less does.

Extra Fun Points: Deadspin diagrams the basketball moves crazily detailed by the Quitta at her press conference.

Tags:

About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (27)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Geezer says:

    Please refer to her as “Bailin’ Palin.”

  2. Phil says:

    Maybe if she becomes pres, she will create that. there are a lot of government agencies being created currently anyway. I say we add to it. Big government FTW!

  3. Error in terminology, not of substance.

    After all, Alaska has a Department of Law not a Department of Justice.

  4. Dorian Gray says:

    I think if her “defenders” or “supporters” or whatever would simply admit that she is an unqualified, incoherent, narcissistic, back-water moron this would all be over. Every thinking person knows by now she’s a liar as well. She doesn’t know much about anything and she a laughing-stock. The problem is certain ideologues feel the need to continue to defend her so others feel the need to point out she’s an idiot… over and over and over and over….

    Look at the phrase, “Department of Law there in the White House”. Why is the word “there” there? Anyway, she is trying to frame this like she’s some small town victim so all the back woods, redneck, Christian rubes jump to her defense. They’ve always been treated like idiots too! It’s mean and hurtful but so is the truth.

  5. cassandra_m says:

    Error of substance too — the Department of Justice wouldn’t just throw charges out unless, of course, she was thinking about bringing back Ashcroft or Fredo.

  6. Dorian Gray says:

    So RWR, the Dept of Law isn’t “there” in the White House? If you’d stop pretending that she’s not a huge ignoramus this would probably go away eventually…

    This is so fucking dumb. Are you really still making excuses for Palin. Really? Wow.

  7. Geezer says:

    Love the diagram. Thanks for the link and laugh.

  8. Remember how GOP operatives said Sarah Palin was so much more qualified than Barack Obama because she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska? Good times.

  9. Doesn’t it get on your nerves how all of a sudden conservatives care about media misogyny? It’s like they pretend it was invented when Sarah Palin became the VP nominee. Hello? Don’t they remember Hillary Clinton? Janet Reno? All the other public women figures before them?

  10. I’m not particularly a Palin supporter. I’m simply noting that she simply used Alaska government terminology.

    Besides, it isn’t like she mistakenly gave the green light to Israel attacking Iran or anything like that. What sort of buffoons would regularly vote for an idiot who would do that? And what does that say about the judgment of whoever would put such an individual only one heartbeat away from the presidency?

  11. cassandra_m says:

    Biden didn’t do what you claim, but we get that you desperately need something else to talk about here.

  12. cassandra_m says:

    Doesn’t it get on your nerves how all of a sudden conservatives care about media misogyny?

    Especially when they have a whole network of radio and TV programs to do just that. I heard Cokie Roberts on NPR yesterday morning talk about the sexism shown to Palin by the media, which I really just don’t get. Mainly they keep highlighting the Stupid — as if it were some reality TV show gone bad or something.

  13. “Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else,”

    “They’re entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that.”

    Sounds pretty green to me.

    What sort of idiot would put this clown one heartbeat from the presidency? What sort of idiots would elect such a buffoon to the Senate for over three decades?

  14. Dorian Gray says:

    Changing the subject… Obfuscation! He said that ultimately they can’t stop a sovereign nation from doing anything, which is actually true.

  15. Perry says:

    “He said that ultimately they can’t stop a sovereign nation from doing anything, which is actually true.”

    Actually true, unless you are a neocon like Rhymes!

  16. cassandra_m says:

    Changing the subject indeed. There was nothing untrue and nothing particularly green about what Biden said. But our neocon faction seems to think that the world exists to follow our orders. But we know how well Israel is following our many-years long instructions to stop settlement activity, it seems reasonable that they’d be just as attentive as far as Iran is concerned.

  17. nemski says:

    So when Palin said the Department of Law, am I the only one who thought she said law with an Inspector Clouseau accent? The department of llllleeewwww. I kill me.

  18. Funny — Obama is trying to stop a sovereign nation from lawfully removing a president that overstepped his constitutional bounds.

  19. cassandra_m says:

    Oh Look! Another diversion! Still can’t find something to defend I guess. Lawful removal of a governing authority usually involves elections or due process of law. But don’t let that stop you from trying to distract us from the fact that you can’t quite find a good way to defend the Quitta.

  20. anonone says:

    Stop trying to hijack cassandra_m’s thread, Rhymey.

    Don’t you need to go sharpen the point on your hood?

  21. Phil says:

    not really the thread topic, but this thread is active.

    What’s with Obama lauding Putin for his ‘extraordinary work’ for the russian people. Wasn’t he the prime minister that striped the russian people of freedoms and moved backwards the most since the fall of the union? Maybe you mods can start a thread on that. lol

  22. What do you want, Phil, for Obama to go spit in Putin’s face? The Russian people elected Putin and as far as I’ve heard, he’s quite popular. We need to get out of the habit of telling other countries how to run theirs.

  23. The military removed Zelaya after both the Supreme Court and Congress — and Zelaya’s own Attorney general — declared the attempt to hold a referendum to amend the nation’s Constitution in violation of the specific provisions of that document to be a move contrary to the Constitution. What was done in Honduras was a defense of democracy, not a repudiation of it.

    If George W. Bush had tried to hold such a national referendum in such circumstances, I would have fully supported his removal by the military and replacement by his constitutionally designated successor as well. After all, our military is sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.

  24. anoni says:

    UI,
    I thought you lefties had a hard-on for speaking truth to power…

    ofcourse that only covers yelling obscenities at conservatives, not actually disagreing with totalitarian leftists.

  25. anoni says:

    I know you all are sticklers for the details (hence this Palin post)

    Obama Lies About How He Met His Wife: Liberal Media Scrambles to Cover for Him

    Well, when all you do is lie, this kinda stuff is going to happen to you.

    “I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure that you’re all going to have wonderful careers,” he said as he warmed up the audience before delivering a commencement speech at an economics school in Moscow Tuesday.

    But the truth is that the couple met not “in class” but at a law firm in Chicago, Sidley Austin, in 1989. Obama was a summer associate (essentially a legal intern) there and Robinson was an attorney completing her first year at the firm. Both attended Harvard Law School, but Michelle graduated in the spring of 1988, while Barack Obama did not arrive at the Cambridge, Mass., campus until that fall.

    And here’s how the liberal media is covering for his idiocy.

    (Excerpt) Read more at thebigfeedblog.com …

  26. Personally, as a conservative, i don’t think that the “how I met my wife” discrepancy is even worth talking about.

    Any more than I think the above Palin story is worth talking about.

  27. callerRick says:

    Palin spits it out the way it is, which is what the left fears most (see the latest Gallup data?) Why do you think they spend so much time on her? Palin is the lefts’ new irrational obsession; isn’t that obvious?