>>>>>Some will reflexively say this is just a partisan post. But I don't see how anyone can read this article with any degree of open mindedness and not be troubled about the prospect of this person becoming President of the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?scp=13&sq=sarah%20palin&st=cse>>>>
>>>>Read your post again Mike. It's like the women who says 'Some of you will just disregard my statements because I am a woman.' You already put the premise out there that anyone who would want to discuss it is either partisan or is not open minded. It's a typical democratic ploy and I'm dissappointed in you. You're starting to copy the pundits...
>>>
>>>Before reading any other responses to this message... I haven't read Mike's message that way. To me it looks as he's predicting (or, to use a fashionable term, preëmpting) the usual backlash of "your sources are biased", "looking at the author's credentials..." etc etc, which is mostly very boring and actually leaving only the most persistent around the waterhole.
>>
>>I'm with you. Sources' biases and authors' credentials are irrelevant. This is the Internet !
>
>If you are still talking about the story in the Times, it was a news story, not an opinion piece. It reported facts. (And if they weren't in fact facts, we will certainly hear about it -- loudly). It reported very specific things Sarah Palin has done in Alaska. To me I found them extremely disquieting in someone who might one day be President. Please note I don't say things like that about John McCain, even though I disagree with many (most?) of his positions. I don't think the Republic will be in the hands of a gross incompetent if he is elected. But Palin, she scares me more the more I learn about her.
Here's the problem I have with the "facts"...
Caption under first picture: 'Throughout her career, Ms. Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance."
The "pursued vendettas", "who crossed her", "blurred the line between government and personal grievance" is NOT fact.
