Sunday's Fact Free Cynthia Tucker Column - Talk about the Politics of Fear!

Cynthia Tucker, mouthpiece of the Democrats and Obama Campaign, and part time Op-Ed page Editor at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a column this weekend comparing Sarah Palin to Dick Cheney. This is my response to her, repeated here for you, my readers.

Note, she has never replied to my last complaint about her lying columns, so I don't expect one now.

My reply to her (the op-ed is at the "writing fiction" link):

As usual, your shilling for the Democratic party is humorous, and sickening at the same time. Perhaps because you write on the Op-Ed page, you think you are writing fiction.

After the mainstream media and Democratic operaratives failed to paint Sarah Palin as the right's new bogeyman with lies about the genesis of her children and belittling of her career as a "small-town" mayor and governor, YOU have shifted to now characterizing her as someone who has "mastered the fine art of manipulation and mendacity" just like Dick Cheney (I am not sure what specific examples you have of Cheney doing this, but it seems an accepted fact on the Far Left).

I really wish you Liberals would choose what the story is you want to tell about Palin. Is Sarah Palin a small town rube, dumber even than George W. Bush, or is she the female Machiavelli, "telling lie after lie to conceal her misdeeds from public view?" We used to hear this same storyline about Bush, too dumb to be President, yet somehow clever enough to fool an entire Congress, including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. Yes, the crafty, but dumber-than-dirt Bush tricked them all into voting for his personal war on Iraq for his robebr baron oil buddies. Now, only Obama stands in the way of a similar fate with Palin on the McCain ticket. Good thing the omniscient Obama foresaw Palin 19 months ago when he started his run for the Presidency!. (Note: That's what we call "sarcasm.")

Cynthia, I am going to do something that may disturb you and the editors at the circulation-challenged AJC, I am going to inject FACTS into the debate and challenge you to prove some of the allegations you make in the Sept. 21 editorial.

It is a fact that Palin supported a bridge between Gravina and the airport at Ketchikan when the Federal Government was going to pony up the money for it. But, need I remind you that Senator Obama, when presented with the opportunity in 2005 to shift the "Bridge" money to Katrina repairs, voted for the Bridge, and when presented with the opportunity to shift earmarks from Bicycle Paths to fixing other American bridges, voted for the bikes. I think the final word here can come from watchdog group, "Citizens Against Government Waste, who has spoken on the "Bridge to Nowhere, "The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward. Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no. Any discussion about the project should begin with facts."

As Wasilla's mayor, she pursued earmarks, just as any mayor (and usually, governor) pursues federal dollars to be plowed into their disricts, cities, states. Shocking that should happen!

However, it's funny you have to go back to her time as Wasilla's mayor to make this allegation. It's actually not funny, it's misleading (a common theme of this editorial) because during her tenure as Alaska's governor, she has reduced the number of earmarks coming to Alaska. If you knew how to use Google, you could have learned this in five minutes. I have to believe this failure to inform your readers is out of ignorance and not a mendacity of manipulation by witholding important facts - we know Cynthia Tucker and her editors at the AJC would never do that. (Note: more sarcasm.)

From here, you launch into the story of Palin and the librarian she "ran off." This was pretty well debunked by factcheck.org. An easy reference to find, had you cared to look, or, share it with your readers. I don't know what you're using to support your characterization that she "didn't take kindly to the mayor's inquiries" or your assertion that Palin ran her off. If she "ran off:" she did it on her own, after working for Palin for 3 years.

Your next line of attack is the revelation from last week's New York Times (a source as reputable as the AJC, when it comes to hit pieces on Republicans) that she had a city attorney fired after he placed a stop-order on a "home being built by one of her campaign supporters". Interesting how this morphed from a "builder" working on a "housing project" in the NYT article to your characterization. Can you please point me to your source that provides this level of detail, and something that makes the linkage you are making and that backs up your assertions? I'm sure the NYT would appreciate that source, too. Seriously, I looked. (All I could find on Google were repeats of the Times article, which I quote, and you misquote.)

Since we're speaking of homes and favors, I should probably remind AJC readers (what's left of them) that it was Barack Obama who participated in a million dollar sweetheart deal with convicted felon and Obama supporter Tony Rezko to buy Obama's $2M Hyde Park home (isn't that kind of like Country Club of the South, without the former terrorists?). For the record, it is Senator Obama who is the second largest recipient of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac contributions in Congress (doing in three years what no other Senator, bar Chris Dodd, could do in ten. Guess he has accomplished something in the Senate!). Furthermore, to cement the linkage between Obama and the current mess (though the Obama campaign denies he was an "advisor") the former disgraced CEO of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, admitted he took calls from the Obama campaign to provide mortgage and housing industry advice. It's been a laugher watching the Washington Post call it's own reporting disreputable on this one.

Next, you move on to the (I guess) current email bru-ha-ha, where, with ZERO evidence, you allege that Palin used a personal email account to "shield her official communications from public records." I feel quite certain that were that true, we'd have seen those emails all over the Internet by now, instead of the few boring, privacy-invading ones we have seen. It's interesting that five years ago, when the GOP was looking at "confidential" Democrat emails on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Liberals were concerned about the act of reading the emails, not the content of the emails, which showed a clear conspiracy between Dems on the Judiciary committee and Liberal special interest groups to tar GOP nominess.

Then, you move on to the Alaska Commissioner of Public Safety's removal in the trooper issue. I guess we have to say the jury's still out on this one. We do know that Palin's office says he was removed from the Commissioner's job because of insubordination and going behind the governor's back on budgeting issues. (One of those things you can decide as Governor is who serves the public with you). They claim to have the "official" emails to prove it. And, even if he she did ask for the firing of a clearly violent and vindictive man who had tasered his pre-teenage son, threatened his father-in-law, and brandished weapons in public, that would not have been an ethics violation. It would have been a service to the people of Alaska. How hypocritical can you people get on the Left??? Here, we have a republican governor who wants to get a gun-toting nut off the state troopers, and you guys want to defend his right to carry a gun, but you won't defend mine! Wow!

You're way off base Cynthia, and, once again, you lie and obfuscate the facts to suit your argument.

You know, when O'Reilly's guys accosted you, I felt a twinge of pity for you. Not anymore. You actually deserve to have someone call you on your lies and smears.

end..