March 20, 2009, - 11:36 am

For it Before AND After She Was Against it: Phony Pol Sarah Palin Accepts 69% of Alaska Stimulus Earmarks

By Debbie Schlussel
Remember how I told you about Sarah Palin’s phony “anti-stimulus bill” positioning? When I wrote about how Palin claimed she was against the stimulus bill after she was first for it and claimed she wanted Alaska to get its “fair share,” I got a number of vile, anti-Semitic, sexist e-mails from Palinmessiah maniacs insisting Palin was against the stimulus bill. These blind followers probably also probably believed her equally phony claim that she was against the “Bridge to Nowhere,” when she actually supported it (then later “opposed” it).
Well, I was right again. This airhead isn’t just an airhead. She’s also a fraud. Her statements sound like an echo chamber of John Kerry about being for the Iraq War before he was against it. She’s now accepting 69%–or $642 million–of the estimated $930 million in federal stimulus funds earmarked for Alaska. Palin, as well as many intellectually dishonest conservatives and Palin fanatics, are lying about the numbers.

sarahpalin2.jpgshesgottahaveit.jpg

And it just shows that you can’t believe everything you read at places like Hot Air, etc. “Allahpundit” at Hot Air reported–and a gazillion airhead idiots mindlessly repeated on their websites, etc.–that Sarah Palin rejected $515 million in stimulus earmarks. But had he–and they–actually bothered to read her lying press release, instead of seeing what they wanted to read, they’d have noted that she actually accepted (by her own admission) $515 million, though she’s actually accepting $642 million, according to every media account except her own.
When I complained, he corrected it, but wrote me that it was no big deal:

No one except you is going to be particularly exercised about the difference between $515 million and $288 million.

Yup, criticize the liberal mainstream media for getting stuff completely wrong, but when you do it yourself, well, “no one . . . is going to be particularly exercised” at the falsity. Right. That’s the attitude. Accuracy doesn’t matter because “no one except you is going to be particularly exercised” about the lack of it.
The bottom line is that Sarah Palin is a fake. She’s not a conservative. She’s not a liberal. She’s not a moderate. She’s just a ruthlessly ambitious ignoramus-ette with no ideology, but for whatever will get her to higher office.
And you can’t believe a thing she says.
As for the stimulus bill earmarks Sarah Palin pretended she was against, well, she can’t help herself.
She’s Gotta Have It.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email






18 Responses

Granted, she should not accept anything; is there any governor who is handing back all of it though?
Also, of course, many, many of those with a favorable opinion of Palin are not anti-Semitic.
[CF: THOSE WHO SEND ME ANTI-SEMITIC E-MAILS WRITE ME WHEN I ATTACK: BARACK OBAMA, MUSLIMS, SARAH PALIN, HIP-HOP. ‘NUFF SAID. DS]

c f on March 20, 2009 at 1:48 pm

If the Palin supporters are anti-Semitic then that is a good enough reason not to join them. Now I thought that Gov. Palin was supposed to be a maverick like Sen. McCain.

rickster on March 20, 2009 at 1:53 pm

I have two words for Palin fans. “KATIE COURIC”. If Palin couldn’t get through that softball toss without soiling the sheets, how was she going to sit across the table with another world leader. And don’t give me any left wing media bias, those questions could have been answered by a freshman at Livonia Stevenson High School. I want my leaders to be the best of the best. Not some “Desperate Housewife” masquerading as a tough b#%@$ with a degree from who cares in Radio and TV.
[J: AMEN. RIGHT ON TARGET. DS]

jedi3129 on March 20, 2009 at 2:15 pm

In her defense, Sarah Palin is VERY pro-Israel, and I would much rather have her running the country than culturally Muslim Obama.
She has an Israeli flag in her office. Can you imagine Obama with an Israeli flag?
http://www.nysun.com/national/palin-only-flag-in-my-office-is-israeli/86671
http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&client=mv-google&v=GDSlOU8HPRY
[G: REALITY CHECK–SHE HASN’T A CLUE ON ISRAEL. A FLAG IS ONE THING. HER AIRHEADED STATEMENTS AT THE VP DEBATE ARE ENTIRELY ANOTHER.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/10/on_last_nights.html
SHE SAID SHE SUPPORTED A PALESTINIAN STATE–SAID IT WAS HER PRIORITY, THAT CONDI RICE DID A GREAT JOB THAT SHE WANTS TO BE FINISHED, DIDN’T CHALLENGE JOE BIDEN WHEN HE SAID WE KICKED HEZBOS OUT OF LEBANON (B/C SHE’S FRICKING CLUELESS), ETC. IF YOU ARE THAT EASILY BOUGHT OFF BY AN ISRAELI FLAG, I HAVE SOME LAND UNDER THE AMERICAN EMBASSY IN JERUSALEM TO SELL YOU. GET IT? THERE IS NO AMERICAN EMBASSY IN JERUSALEM. I GET THAT. YOU MIGHT GET THAT. SARAH PALIN HASN’T A CLUE. IF YOU WANT A COMPLETE DUMMY IN THE WHITE HOUSE B/C OF ISRAEL, WELL, YOU HAD THAT FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, ONLY NOT QUITE AS DUMB. WAKE THE HECK UP ON THIS FRAUD. SARAH PALIN WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR AMERICA, NOT TO MENTION ISRAEL. BUT SHE’LL NEVER BE PREZ, SO I WISH PEOPLE WOULD LOOK FOR SOMEONE WHO CAN BE ON OUR SIDE OF THE IDEOLOGICAL DIVIDE, INSTEAD OF CONTINUING TO BLINDLY EMBRACE A DUMMY IN A SKIRT. DS]

Gabe on March 20, 2009 at 5:03 pm

A conservative would say “NO” on principle. Federal money comes with strings attached and you have to spend it the way Washington dictates. And here I thought the GOP stood for “state’s rights?” A recession is enough to make them drop their objections to a federal handout.
“Follow the money.” And this is who Republicans want to nominate in 2012? We need someone with true conservative beliefs in the White House not someone expedient who simply has an ambition to seek higher office. Been there, done that with George W. Bush. And look where its gotten the GOP!

NormanF on March 20, 2009 at 6:12 pm

The stimulus payouts are a legitimate issue to challenge Mrs. Palin on. At least you refrained from calling the family “white trash” this time. Is the Palin son serving in Iraq ‘white trash’ too? Just wondering.
Sarah Palin may leave a lot to be desired but it’s not as if the GOP has a very satifying menu of solid, viable conservatives to chose from. In fact, they seem to hate real conservatives more than the democrats.

Tempus Fugit on March 20, 2009 at 7:25 pm

Palins week.
Monday: Somebody associated with he PAC confirms she will be the keynote speaker at the national congressional fundraiser, something she claims she knows nothing about.
A couple Representatives introduce a resolution to revisit the viability of AGIA (the natural gas pipeline she once claimed was being built).
Tuesday: An article in a national magazine by Joe McGinniss is released critical of her AGIA pipeline.
Wednesday: Palin speaks to selected press defending AGIA with half truths from her staff and then announces she is willing to meet with producers about revisiting gas & oil taxes which she was always unflinching about and is just the opposite of her staff testified to in a Senate committee just last week.
Thursday: Announces she is rejecting 55% of stimulus funds. Something that caught some legislators and school administrators off guard because she already signaled to them she would be requesting some of these funds.
Friday: It’s now reported it’s only 31% of funds she may reject while at the same time her OMB sends out an email telling everyone to send in all requests for stimulus funds. Palin also sends out her Lt. Governor to reassure everyone she’s not rejecting any stimulus, she just wants a public debate on what they should accept.

lowandslow on March 20, 2009 at 8:15 pm

Tempus, if she got invited to the upcoming Bilderberg convention, she would accept faster than you can say Wasilla!
And in case you need to know about this group that believes in the New World Order and a one world currency…see below…
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_bilderberg.html
Also, people who support Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, are against the NWO, believe in the Constitution, etc, in the eyes of The Missouri Information Action Center…IS A TERRORIST!
Don’t believe me? SEE FOR YOURSELF
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-MovementMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09-
And as a matter of fact, MO Governor Jay Nixon STANDS BEHIND THIS!
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=276049
What can you do? Flood this fool with phone calls…1-573-751-3222
Oh, and one more thing…THIS PARTICULAR NIXON IS A DEMOCRAT!

NEPatriot on March 20, 2009 at 9:45 pm

On the surface Debbie, I have to disagree. I don’t know the details and will tread lightly. For instance if schools or highways in your state have a revenue shortfall and you don’t take the federal stimulus bill and your state has a budget deficit then it is possible you may be asked to raise state property, sales or income taxes to shore up the deficits. If I was a governor, it would be foolish to just deny all stimulus money. If they come with strings attached for future expansion or unfunded mandates in the future I would not accept that money. However, if they are one time construction project where it would alleviate a property tax increase then I would think it would be prudent to take the money. I believe government should only increase at the rate of Inflation plus Population Growth. Anything collected above and beyond that should be put in a rainy day fund or given back in refunds. I would also make sure that any stimulus money would not be part of any future budget calculation. She is facing a $2.6 Billion deficit and rather than raising state taxes I would consider taking some of the money without expanding future government. I think it would be utterly selfish to put your political ambitions ahead of the needs of the people. Especially if they will call for tax increases to shore up the budget. I don’t know for sure how much of the stimulus she is collecting that have strings attached, however if they are one time projects then I would support taking the money.

californiascreaming on March 20, 2009 at 10:27 pm

“She is facing a $2.6 Billion deficit and rather than raising state taxes I would consider taking some of the money without expanding future government.”
She is facing that deficit for two reasons, she massively expanded government and raised taxes. If she would have only expanded government in relation to population increase, she would have no deficit. If she wouldn’t have increased the windfall profit tax on oil producers she would have more revenue right now. That’s why claims of her being a fiscal conservative have no merit.

lowandslow on March 21, 2009 at 12:20 am

i think that is why I liked Jindal-he refused most of the money for his state, even though they needed it. Jindal 2012? p.S.
I’m hhheeereee had to reregister with a new email.

mindy1 on March 21, 2009 at 10:48 am

“i think that is why I liked Jindal-he refused most of the money for his state, even though they needed it. Jindal 2012?”
The difference between Jindal and Sanford verses Palin is, they made the argument against the stimulus by pointing out the lack of anything substantive in the act that will actually stimulate the economy, it wasn’t just about expanding the size of government. They could do this because they actually know what they’re talking about.

lowandslow on March 21, 2009 at 3:10 pm

I saw this statement on the Atlantic’s website for Feb. 20. Hopefully it was an accurate quote of Gov. Jindal’s position:
“Today, Governor Bobby Jindal announced that the state will not change its law to use a part of the $787 billion federal stimulus bill that would result in an unemployment insurance tax increase on Louisiana businesses. The Governor also announced that the state will use a provision in the legislation to increase state unemployment benefits for recipients by an extra $25 per week, and reaffirmed his acceptance of the transportation funds included in the bill to fund shovel-ready transportation priorities in the state.”
His reasoning: the federal government won’t pay the money forever, so taxpayers and businesses would have to foot the bill for the bigger dole. Jindal, in the statement, urges other states to take a look at the provision. In lieu of the government money, Jindal said that the state would increase its unemployment payments by $25 per week.
This is hardly a ringing endorsement of fiscal austerity. I respect Jindal and Sanford, but I am not aware of any significant differences between their positions and Palin’s on a number of issues. I suspect that Palin is taking her present position for opportunist reasons, but cannot eliminate that possibility from the other two governors.
On the Mideast, of course Debbie is right about Palin, although I suspect her endorsement of the government’s position is based more on expediency than understanding. But I would have to say the same about jindal and Sanford. i’m not aware of any penetrating analysis, or rejection of the Fatah/Hamas/appeasement approach by either of them, or any other significant Republican politician.
This seems to me a little like the Romney/McCain/Thompson/Huckabee debate; which one was better? All were inadequate based on poor positions on the key questions.
Palin does have the advantage of being able to rally crowds, but the apparent deceptiveness re her daughter is not encouraging. It would be nice to see a potential candidate who really stood for something and had the courage to stand alone, if necessary, for what is right.
[CF: SHE’S AN AIRHEAD . . . ON THE MID-EAST AND EVERYTHING ELSE. IF SHE IS THE NOMINEE, OBAMA WILL BE IN FOR 8 YEARS. PERIOD. THE OTHERS YOU MENTION ARE ALL HEAD-AND-SHOULDERS ABOVE HER IN EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY . . . EXCEPT HAVING A VAGINA, WHICH WAS THE ONLY REASON MCCAIN PICKED HER. DS]

c f on March 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Of course my reference to “her” endorsement of the Government’s position refers to Palin’s endorsement.

c f on March 21, 2009 at 6:29 pm

Ms Schlussel: I have to chuckle. You are probably the FIRST and ONLY person EVER to criticize Hot Air’s Allahpundit for being too kind to Palin. Allah routinely disses her on his blog and is in turn routinely bashed by pro-Palin Hot Air readers. Allah is an avowed atheist, by the way, which is part of the reason for his animus toward Palin. (By the way: Allah evidently later “updated” his post with a correction on the dollar figure: So you may have had an impact on his posting!) I think you are a bit too hard on Palin, personally: Though I am glad you are there to point out her inconsistencies to those of us who are male and easily distracted by her pulchritude. As another poster has written: I’d take Palin over Obama any day — and over Bush, as well, for that matter. I do love your line about having some land under the US Embassy in Jerusalem for sale. Funny thing: As I recall GWB campaigned on that as an issue (moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem). Following his election, Congress PASSED A LAW authorizing such a move, but also containing an annual “escape clause,” whereby a President could claim it harmed US interests to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Guess who invoked the escape clause every year he was in office? The same guy who campaigned for the embassy move in the first place: GWB.
[GJ: NO KIDDING–I’VE WRITTEN ABOUT GWB’S HYPOCRISY ON THE EMBASSY. DON’T THINK PALIN WILL BE ANY DIFFERENT. SHE’S EVEN MORE OF A DUMMY AND MORE MOLDABLE THAN HE WAS. NOT SURE WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT A REPEAT OF THE 8 YEARS WE JUST HAD. THAT THERE IS OBAMA IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR HIS HORRIBLE PRESIDENCY TO BE THE BENCHMARK FOR WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE. AS FOR AP GETTING IT WRONG ON PALIN, HIS PAST HISTORY ON HER IS NOT THE ISSUE. HIS RESPONSE THAT NO-ONE BUT ME CARES ABOUT THE ACCURATE NUMBERS IS THE ISSUE HERE. DS]

gunjam on March 21, 2009 at 7:27 pm

I’m not one of those Palin fanatics who thinks my girl is Mary mother of Jesus as the Obamabots think they’re man is the Messiah. And I appreciate you pointing out her flaws, because that’s exactly what the media’s job should be.
But why you place her in the same category as Obama is baffling. There are no Ayers’s, Wright’s, Rezco’s, Alinsky’s, Odinga’s , or any other thugs in her background. And she has proven she has the ability to run a city and a state, which is more than I can say about Obama. His lack of Executive experience is painfully obvious already.
But I would like to know if any Governor is not taking this money or giving any of it back? After all, she is the leader of her state, and in what is going to be some tough economic times, wouldn’t it be kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face, if she didn’t accept this money from the Feds, and this ended up harming the very people who elected her?
A responsible leader has to compromise and pick and choose the good fights.
You are never going to get Jesus Christ or a perfect person for a leader. You have to accept the flaws with the person.
What’s important is, are they more good than bad.
Do they have ethics? Do they have morals? Do they hold your views on how we should be Governed?
If she were just this total flip flopper I would agree with you 100%.
Anyone with any kind of integrity understands that this Stimulus bill is about as irresponsible as it gets. If it doesn’t bankrupt the country it will bring us to the brink.
And you have to admit, being for the war before you were against the war, isn’t quite the same as being for the earmarks before you were against them.
Now when you can report that she is guilty of voter registration fraud, campaign finance fraud, or any of the other disgusting things in Obama’s background I will jump to your side of the issue in a New York minute.
Even if you can prove she’s a habitual liar pandering votes like Obama, will get me to jump ship.
In the meantime, I just care to disagree with you and give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it’s misplaced, only time will tell. I voted for Nixon and we all know how that turned out.
Please don’t take it personal, because I agree with you Ms. Schlussel 99% of the time.

08hayabusa on March 22, 2009 at 2:47 pm

I haven’t logged onto this site for months, because the last time I did it was a Palin-bashing.
Ah, another rant by the jealous hater, stuck in Michigan. No man, no children, no career, unless you consider running a hate site and complaining about being blocked.
I think on the relevance scale you’ve dropped to a new low.

OrthodoxGuy on March 23, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Since we’re playing “Conservatives Who Eat Their Own” (I’d prefer to leave that to Libs who have perfected the art), how much earmark money went to Louisiana? And Google “Jindal earmarks” to see how Bobby Jindal was WAY FOR earmarks before he had his eye on the 2012 election. So Palin’s not the only one who was “for it before she was against it”. The point is there’s a difference between the obligations of a Governor of a State, and the obligations of Federal Government. A Governor’s JOB is to TAKE CARE of his state FIRST. That goes for Jindal AND Palin. Don’t be hatin’ Palin just cause you’re pro-Jindal. It’s kinda juvenile

linh on March 23, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Leave a Reply for gunjam

Click here to cancel reply.

* denotes required field